http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./ray%20gaster.JPG

I just GOT to get one of those for my business!!!! :D

Michale.....

Apologize for it? Heck, O and his surrogates are continuing to pursue it. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-brings-felons-latest-ad_649152.html

http://sjfm.us/temp/images.jpg

:D

Michale......

White House issues embarrassing apology to Charles Krauthammer over Churchill bust gaffe
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100173449/white-house-issues-humiliating-apology-to-charles-krauthammer-over-churchill-bust/

But, credit where credit is due.

It's nice to see Team Obama man up and do the right thing.. They SHOULD have done it with their crass and boorish "felony" accusation against Romney...

So, they only get a half-kewpie for doing the right thing with the Churchill gaffe...

Michale.....

Here's a PERFECT example...

Boycott about so much more than a chicken sandwich
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/31/boycott-about-so-much-more-than-chicken-sandwich/

Michale.....

Done with this discussion, all the best.

IOW, you have no clue that Clinton's lying economic team is responsible for not only their own 1998 near-meltdown but the 2008 one, as well: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

You're trying to back off your previous position on Dodd-Frank by turning this into a discussion on regulation in general

I've made MANY comments about my position on Dodd-Frank, and you don't get to isolate one single statement and present it as my ONLY position. For the third time: Dodd-Frank not only fell short of its goal but went OVERBOARD on on enacting regulations that compromised small bussinesses' ability to secure loans and credit extentions from their community banks. That is one big mess of a piece of legislation, IMO, and neither Romney nor I want it repealed ONLY because it didn't "go far enough," i.e., it didn't fulfill its goal to stop future stystemic meltdowns. It fell short of meeting it primary goal AND it went too far with regulations and hurt business owners. Got that now? Or may I look forward to your misrepresenting my statements and distoring my views yet another time?

I have stated that I think Dodd-Frank is a big mess, just like CrapCare. It failed its mission, which was to institute regulations so that systemic melt-downs could not occur again. Corzine's Global proves that failure.

I am ALSO against regulations — both in the financial sector, and in general — that compromise businesses' ability to expand and hire in this God-awful economy.

I believe in sensible regulation, not an OVERLOAD thereof, as it takes a delicate balance to protect consumers without hindering business owners.

Those are my feelings about regulations. Do not cherry-pick one thing I say and present it as though it's the ONLY thing I've said, or my ONLY stance on the subject. IOW, do not distor MY words or the INTENT behind them.

The guy who trashed the health economy left by Clinton is the guy that I'm sure they will be comparing to more than Clinton...

"You're misrepresenting his stance, which is yet another tactic you constantly employ. (Either that, or you clearly don't know what you're talking about.) Romney is against regulations that place an unnecessary burden on businesses in general, and he's against regulations that don't work, such as that Dodd-Frank mess has since proven. And I agree with him 100%. So peddle your misleading nonsense elsewhere."

I am not misrepresenting anything - this is your tactic when you don't want to address my point. You're trying to back off your previous position on Dodd-Frank by turning this into a discussion on regulation in general and claiming I am twisting Romney's position.

But his position on DODD-FRANK - WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING - is clear. He states that Dodd-Frank went too far - calling it a 'quantum increase in the scale of the regulatory burden' to use his own words and wants it repealed and 'streamlined'. This is 100% fact what he states on his website. There is literally no other mention of Dodd-Frank than this so explain how I am misleading his position on this?

You have stated in this thread you don't believe Dodd-Frank went far enough and there are financial dangers because of this. Fact. No misleading. You can't back away.

So I'd like to hear your actually address this inconsistency and explain how you think Romney calling it a 'quantum increase' and stating it needed 'streamlined' is consistent with your statement that you agree it did not go far enough and there are financial dangers as a result - and no backing off and changing topic.

You can keep dancing around this and claiming I am 'misleading' on his position on Dodd-Frank or you can address what I am talking about.

You're misrepresenting his stance, which is yet another tactic you constantly employ. (Either that, or you clearly don't know what you're talking about.) Romney is against regulations that place an unnecessary burden on businesses in general, and he's against regulations that don't work, such as that Dodd-Frank mess has since proven. And I agree with him 100%. So peddle your misleading nonsense elsewhere.

O's bringing in Bill Clinton to help him out again. I think the plan is to somehow link O to Clinton's economic record, since he can't run on his own. If that's the case, it's a risky strategy, IMO. Putting aside that Clinton can be a bit of loose cannon, his centrist policies, and his ability to work with Republicans, and his healthy economy could easily serve to spotlight O's own failings, by comparison. I wonder if anyone over at Team-O has thought about that.

I don't think it's possible to move to the right of Romney ;) Unless he goes ahead and just jumps off the cliff on the far right which Romney is teetering over :)

Well, my belief if that Obama doesn't do it because his base will crucify him.. I think he is putting too much stock in his base..

His base let's him get away with assassinating Americans without a trial, so I doubt they would raise much of a fuss if he attacked Iran...

My theory is that Obama WILL attack Iran in the next 60 days or so, in an effort to win over Independents and NPAs...

Everything Obama has done recently has been to cater to his base. Amnesty for Illegals, Gay Marriage, etc etc. All of that has the Left base singing his praises.

My GUESS is that Obama will pivot and start acting to the RIGHT of Romney in an effort to win over Independents and NPAs...

Dunno if he will be successful, though. We're still bruising from being conned over "Hope and Change"...

I doubt "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" will sway many.... :D

Michale......

The funny thing is that considering both you and Chris believe that Obama's entire foreign policy is dictated by political gain alone (you stated such in this forum) then why hasn't he joined Israel in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities? Joining with Israel + a good old war is very good for the political ratings in America as history has shown...

Did sanctions work against Iraq??

Did sanctions work against North Korea??

The answer is NO to both cases..

We'll be able to add Iran to that when we see a mushroom cloud over the Iranian desert..

Like I said.. I'll be around to say, "Told ya so"... :D

Michale.....

"IE.. Sanctions are NOT WORKING..."

Me: There is a pretty big difference between 'working' and 'worked' in this conversation that you are missing.

Pancetta said very clearly that sanctions have not yet WORKED, he did not say that they are NOT WORKING. He clearly stated they were working and he believes they should continue down this path. Understand?

"SANCTIONS HAVEN'T WORKED!!!"

Again. Refer to the above. You don't know what the difference between working and worked. I'll quote myself again.

Me: Will sanctions alone be enough? As I said 'Whether it is enough remains to be seen'. But you, on the other hand, have already concluded (with no evidence, based on your own opinion and 'experience') that they haven't worked and won't be enough... This is nonsense.

"Yes, it's MY OPINION that sanctions will not work. But I base that opinion on FACTS and my experiences in the region.."

This is absolutely fine. If you are arguing sanctions will not work this is a perfectly fine argument, which you can use evidence to support. It is a completely separate argument than 'sanctions are not working' which I will not agree with since the evidence contradicts this.

If you'd said this from the get-go we could've discussed it. I respect your opinion and I don't even disagree with it, like I said my view is sanctions are working but whether or not they will be enough remains to be seen...

It's simply impossible to debate with you because you refuse to accept the facts when they show that you are wrong..

"U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged Monday that increasingly stiff international sanctions have yet to compel Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.

IE.. Sanctions are NOT WORKING...

But you, on the other hand, have already concluded (with no evidence, based on your own opinion and 'experience') that they haven't worked

Jesus H Frak'in Christ!!!!

SANCTIONS HAVEN'T WORKED!!!

If they had worked we wouldn't even be having this conversation, now would we!??? Get a frakin' clue, dood....

and won't be enough... This is nonsense.

No, actually it's YOUR position that sanctions WILL work is "nonsense"..

How do I know this??

Because you base the nonsense on absolutely NO knowledge of the area, the regional difficulties or the inherent danger represented..

Yes, it's MY OPINION that sanctions will not work. But I base that opinion on FACTS and my experiences in the region..

The ONLY thing you base YOUR opinion on is your love of The Great BARACK The First, He Who Can Do No Wrong.

Sanctions HAVEN'T WORKED..

This is fact..

If you dispute that, then obviously we are on two different planets (I'm the guy that's on Earth) and no agreement is possible...

Michale...

Nope my (and Pancetta's) statement 'sanctions are working' is correct based on the facts and evidence available. Your statement 'sanctions have done absolutely no good' is completely false based on the facts and evidence available. It is over the top rhetoric.

There is a pretty big difference between 'working' and 'worked' in this conversation that you are missing.

Will sanctions alone be enough? As I said 'Whether it is enough remains to be seen'. But you, on the other hand, have already concluded (with no evidence, based on your own opinion and 'experience') that they haven't worked and won't be enough... This is nonsense.

Sanctions are NOT working.. Yea, I know. Obama is saying that they WILL work..

Obama also said he would close Gitmo, that ObamaCare would actually bring down health care costs, that people would be able to keep their health care plan and a whole bunch of other crap that turned out to be BS..

I acknowledge that Team Obama is saying they WILL work..

YOU must acknowledge that Obama has said a LOT of things, many of which never come to fruition..

Team Obama, like you, are involved in WishCasting, not reality...

And, to be perfectly immodest, my prognostication abilities for the region have, to date, been spot on..

I predicted that Egypt and Libya would go to an Islamist/Religious government ala' Iran whilst everyone else was saying it's going to be a democracy...

Nice try though. At least you tried to find facts to substantiate your claim, even if they ended up doing the opposite...

The ONLY fact I pointed to was Panetta claiming that the sanctions haven't worked. THAT was in response to YOUR claim that the sanctions are working..

So, it's obvious that you were wrong and I was right..

As to forecasting the future??

My track record is a LOT better than Team Obama's... :D

Michale.....

Lol I remember hearing this and all the other stuff you mentioned before. It was to do with another country beginning with Ira...

"U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged Monday that increasingly stiff international sanctions have yet to compel Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120730/DA0BBV6G0.html"

Lol this is a pretty obvious statement. Did you even read the full report you linked to??

I love as well how you completely took this quote out of context. Here is the full sentence with bold added for emphasis on the part you missed:

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged Monday that increasingly stiff international sanctions have yet to compel Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. But he argued that more pressure eventually would lead Iran to "do what's right."

More quotes from the same article:
""And while the results of that may not be obvious at the moment, the fact is that they have expressed a willingness to negotiate (with the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China) and they continue to seem interested in trying to find a diplomatic solution," he said."

""What we all need to do is to continue the pressure on Iran, economically and diplomatically ... to negotiate and to ultimately do what's right in joining the international family," he added."

Nice try though. At least you tried to find facts to substantiate your claim, even if they ended up doing the opposite...

But there is also this FACT:

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged Monday that increasingly stiff international sanctions have yet to compel Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120730/DA0BBV6G0.html

Sanctions are NOT working.. Yea, I know. Obama is saying that they WILL work..

Obama also said he would close Gitmo, that ObamaCare would actually bring down health care costs, that people would be able to keep their health care plan and a whole bunch of other crap that turned out to be BS..

Nothing short of military action will prevent Iran from going ahead.

This is what the FACTS (personal experience and evidence from across the globe) say....

Don't worry. I'll be around to tell you, "Told ya so"... :D

Michale.....

Yes you would. Because you are ignorant of the dynamic that drives the Iranian government and the regional idiosyncrasies....

No offense intended.

"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
-SubCommander T'al. STAR TREK The Enterprise Incident

I can assure you that, much like Saddam and his playing footsies with the UN and North Korea playing footsies with the West, Iran is simply putting up a show of co-operation because they know that "useful idiots" (Lenin's term, not mine) will buy into that garbage and give Iran all they time they need..

Whether it is enough remains to be seen, but to state they have done 'absolutely no good' is blatant rhetoric and lies.

Nope, it's the facts based on experience...

You see, THAT is where experience plays the dominant role.. As opposed to pie-in-the-sky koom-bye-yaa wishful thinking.

It's the difference between seeing the world the way that it is rather than seeing the world as we would wish it to be.

Granted, my experience is somewhat dated. But I see nothing that would lead me to conclude that things are much different than they were when I was active.

I am constrained to point out that even SecDef Panetta has stated that sanctions haven't slowed down Iran much...

Michale.....

You are in denial but I am going to keep hammering home:

"The risk of systemic failure is still alive and well. Here's the link once again: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/mf-global-six-billion-dollar-bet/ Take the time to actually watch it and learn the facts."

I agree. I work in finance. I know the factors that led to the crash. This is why a vote for Romney would be disastrous as he believes the crappy regulation that does exist goes too far and Dodd-Frank was a 'quantum increase' in regulation.

You and I both disagree with him on this. We both have stated that Dodd-Frank did not go far enough and you have even just stated that 'the risk of systemic failure is still alive and well'. To make such a statement and then vote for the guy who wants to destroy and streamline existing regulation is not rational or logical.

I suggest that you reconsider your vote for Romney if you truly believe this.

"I'm a she, not a he."

Sorry! Please accept my apologies.

Michael "And yet, they are doing absolutely NO GOOD.."

Nope. I'd suggest Iran returning to the negotiating table and letting in Nuclear weapons inspectors means that they have done some good. Whether it is enough remains to be seen, but to state they have done 'absolutely no good' is blatant rhetoric and lies.

And yet, they are doing absolutely NO GOOD..

The US's and Israel's cyber attacks have been a LOT more effective in slowing down Iran's nuclear program.

But now that Team Obama has spilled the beans on THAT operation (no wonder the Israelis are pissed!) that will cut the effectiveness by a factor of 10...

If Iran is not stopped militarily from obtaining nukes, Iran will not be stopped from obtaining nukes.

These are the facts. And anyone who knows ANYTHING about the military or the region would tell you the same thing.

Michale....

Now THAT was funny... :D

Romney ain't too bad-looking, himself.

Hadn't noticed.. :D

I am guessing that is where a LOT of the animosity from the Left comes from..

Beyond the run-o-the-mill "Kill the Right!!! Kill the Right!!!" hysteria, people are usually jealous of good-looking greatly-successful people...

Michale.....

Romney ain't too bad-looking, himself.

Obama's positions change with the political wind, michty. He's been known to say one thing and do another, which has driven many a liberal to distraction over the past few years. So regardless of what he SAYS his position is on Dodd-Frank, he still signed that faulty piece of legislation into law, and yet another financial instituion has since melted down. The risk of systemic failure is still alive and well. Here's the link once again: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/mf-global-six-billion-dollar-bet/ Take the time to actually watch it and learn the facts.

he went on a rant about how I'd bent his words and all this, then changed the topic and never came back to it after post [92]

I'm a she, not a he. And when I see a pattern of misrepresenting my statements, employed as a tactic to support one's own positions, I'm prone to citing it and ending that particular discussion. If I wanted that level of discourse, I'd be over at the HuffPo.

Michale

You have a different definition of 'stop' than I do clearly. Like I said the idea that a 21st Century war could be 'stopped' in any way shape or form in one day by the President alone doesn't fly for me no matter how much you 'infer' or define the word stop.

Michale

"For you, Obama and Democrats can do no wrong.."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: perhaps you should actually read my posts. I've criticised Obama and the Democrats no fewer than 6 times on 6 different issues just in this thread alone (tax, CT, Dodd-Frank, CT leadership, CT foreign policy, hypocrisy).

The difference is that I will criticise Obama where I think it is deserved and praise him where I think he deserves it. You mistake my general hatred of Romney (which I will absolutely admit to, since there is barely a policy of his I agree with and I think he is an unprincipled, manipulative power seeker) as love of Obama and Democrats. The Republicans are so far right just now it is hard for me to find anything I like about them - where I do criticise Obama their policies are usually way worse on the issue!

Finally you and Chris live in this weird bubble where everything Obama does is (miraculously) wrong in your eyes and the entire world is conspiring against Republicans. Even in the face of facts. And even when I point out things (read a few posts back) like that Obama's position on Dodd-Frank is miles closer to Chris's position he went on a rant about how I'd bent his words and all this, then changed the topic and never came back to it after post [92]...

If it's so inaccurate this should be incredibly easy for you to prove right? :)

The fact that you even have to HAVE proof is proof enough that you wouldn't accept any proof..

Much like with Obama's faux paus with the Brits...

For you, Obama and Democrats can do no wrong..

Since your's is, for all intents and purposes, a religious-like devotion, it's better not to get ensnared in religious debates....

I hope you do stick around til 7 Nov..

It will be a hoot to discuss things with you then.. :D

Michale....

Just don't credit it as having come out of my mouth. Make the distinction between what I've actually said and how you personally choose see things. Is that asking too much? If so, by all means, chat with somebody else, because I'm tired of having to correct the record. When I say something like "He could have stopped both those wars on Day One, if he so desired," it doesn't mean he could have pulled the troops out in one day. It means what it says: He could have stopped both those wars on Day One, if he so desired. That is a fact, having nothing to do with the logistics of removing troops.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/what-happened-to-the-obamacons.html

That should do it, I'm out of here with this foolishness. Cue the BS in 3...2...1

PLEASE stop deliberately stepping in the cow-pies :) Almost all of the CW site is safe to walk bare-foot through.

If it's so inaccurate this should be incredibly easy for you to prove right? :)

I did read what you wrote..

It's just that what you wrote (Democrats didn't oppose Bush's CT policies) is so blindingly and painfully inaccurate, I felt it would be dishonorable to slam down someone who is so far removed from reality..

It would be like kicking a baby bird after it fell out of it's nest...

Michale....

I am sure I'll be saying something similar in approx 100 days..

Of course, the difference is that I'll be accurate.. :D

Michale.....

I was going to post another comment but decided to hold it off. If I am not allowed to infer or interpret anything you say there is no point in even having discussions.

And if you really do believe Obama could've stopped both wars on day 1, then good on you. Keep believing that. I'm not going to waste my time discussing any comments like this any-more.

I didn't say they were. I said that the Commander in Chief could have done so, if he wished.

Let me put it this way: it is literally impossible that Obama could've gotten all troops out of all war zones on day 1. Impossible.

I didn't say he could have. Stick with my written words, not your personal interpretations and inferences thereof.

I am interested in debating this with you but if you're going to be childish and petty by suggesting all Obama military decisions are basically taken based on his political interests.

Again, I'm not interested in your tactics of reducing and dismissing my opinons as "childish/petty" just because you don't agree with them. And, again, I can employ those very same tactics on you, if that's the way you want to play it.

I guess Obama is your god and we'll leave the "debate" at that..."

Well since I stated the exact opposite of this and you clearly didn't even read what I wrote then yes let's leave the debate there, since usually in a debate you have to actually read what the other person is writing.

This isn't a fact. Give me some facts. Name some Bush CT policies that Democrats did not support. Show me the facts!

Ohmygods, SERIOUSLY!!??

I honestly don't know how to address such complete and utter denial...

It's clear we can't have an intelligent debate about this, if you are of the opinion that Democrats supported Bush's CT policies as much as they support Obama's continuation and expansion of those same policies..

I guess Obama is your god and we'll leave the "debate" at that...

Michale.....

Your religious-esque devotion to Obama???"

Well with Iran military intervention based on flimsy evidence is not really on the cards (I know right-wingers like selective memory and hate bringing up the past, but remember this didn't quite go so well last time...).

So the next best option is to pursue an aggressive ground-game and economic games. Which, since Iran is now returning to the negotiating table and has even let in UN inspectors, is starting to work.

With Israel I personally have no idea why America has to continue to support them so closely. I guess not growing up in America I am devoid of this irrational love of the country (and am not influenced by the enormous money of the Jewish lobby too, which is probably the biggest reason).

I believe some sort of compromise is needed and that the 2-Party State is the most obvious (and has the most international support). This is the compromise Obama has pursued. The problem is it never worked previously because America just gave into Israel - the nature of compromise is you have to be willing to give and previously America/Israel wasn't. So Obama has pressured them to try to compromise whilst supporting them (eg. on Iran) when necessary.

The Rabid Right is so boorishly predictable. Yawn.

Haha yeh I just can't see nonsense and resist not commenting to it - I am trying!

I read the author's commentary and I thought it was as excellent, if not more so, than the video itself.

This was the best point:
"We're falling further and further behind European and Third World countries in education, health and life expectancy because we've allowed ourselves and this rotting carcass of a country to be taken over by right wingers and corporations"

"But the facts are this. Democrats opposed nearly every CT policy that the Bush administration put forth..."

This isn't a fact. Give me some facts. Name some Bush CT policies that Democrats did not support. Show me the facts!

"But when President Obama entered the picture, Democrats couldn't fall over themselves fast enough to embrace the expansion of those same policies."

I agree with this. It is a valid criticism of Obama and the Democrats. Very hypocritical of them and Obama.

"The fact that those policies have been wildly successful proves beyond ANY doubt that Democrats were WRONG to oppose Bush's CT policies...
"

I mean again you're been liberal with your use of the word 'fact' to justify rhetoric. Show me some actual facts that prove these were successful. I'm not even disagreeing with you but I'm not agreeing with pure rhetoric.

See Michale it isn't that hard to debate issues without resorting to extreme nut-job comments like 'Democrats love Al Qaeda'...

Chris
"I most certainly can and do. He's the Commander in Chief. He could have stopped both those wars on Day One, if he so desired."

Come on. You're smarter than this. You seriously think that this is how wars in the 21st century are ended?? Let me put it this way: it is literally impossible that Obama could've gotten all troops out of all war zones on day 1. Impossible.

" Do I think it's a good strategy? In terms of O's own political campaign, yes. In terms of the U.S. and allies gathering intel, no. But then again, O seems to always put his own political interests before anything else. So on with the drone strikes we go."

I am interested in debating this with you but if you're going to be childish and petty by suggesting all Obama military decisions are basically taken based on his political interests. If this is your view then there is no point even trying to discuss rationally with you...

"and with all options on the table [read: support for a strike on Iran's nuke facilities; no ifs, ands, buts, or squishy language about it]."

Lolol this is exactly the same language Obama used. Seriously man you need to take your glasses off and look at the world.

"I think Romney — who has no problem stating the name of the captial of Israel — presents a much more no-nonsense/no-excuses stance as Israel's solid ally"

We can certainly discuss this. If you think the solution to the problem is to completely back one side and the Internationally favoured 2-State solution, which Obama and every other major country backs, is wrong then go ahead and argue your case... I think siding aggressively with one side (as both Romney and Obama have done) isn't going to lead to peace.

"Just because you disagree, or refuse to accept the press's double standards, doesn't make it drivel or nonsense, michty"

No the point is the 'double standards' are an invention by you and the Republicans in response to negative media coverage when your candidate does something stupid.

Unlike you, I can and will criticise Obama (see this very comment).

You consistently project any negative media as 'double standard' even when it clearly isn't and is EVEN ANOTHER COUNTRIES MEDIA! I will continue to point out that any mention of media 'double standards', unless backed by relevant facts and evidence, are your nonsensical and drivel attempts to divert the attention away from the flaws of Mr Romney.

"I like sensible, well-balanced regulation; not an OVERLOAD of regulations, which can compromise businesses and jobs. And I don't like creating new government agencies when standard oversight is all that's needed. Those are MY thoughts, and MY words, so don't misrepresent them."

I mean seriously you are fighting a really silly battle here.

You specifically stated (fact) that Dodd-Frank did not go far enough for you.

I responded by saying that you must not support Romney then, before you went off on this crazy defense, seemingly arguing that Romney is the better candidate for someone who doesn't think Dodd-Frank went far enough - when there is no argument really.

As I have mentioned if you actually do feel the position you stated about Dodd-Frank, this is a MAJOR difference to Romney. I will try explaining one more time:

Romney wants to repeal Dodd-Frank because he feels it went too far - that is, the exact OPPOSITE view of you, as stated above. From his website:

"A number of his major initiatives like Dodd-Frank and Obamacare represent a quantum increase in the scale of the regulatory burden on the American economy."

"Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework"
(bold added for emphasis)

Romney thinks Dodd-Frank was a 'quantum increase' that needs to be 'streamlined'. Can you not see that this is the OPPOSITE view of someone who doesn't "think Dodd-Frank went far enough"???

You and I read a similar number of blogs and journals. The reason I have to quote his website and had to refer to you not having read it because I literally cannot believe how you are incapable of seeing how far you and Romney differ on this issue...

That's usually the advice the peanut gallery follows when the facts become too much too handle...

I believe Obama has handled Israel and Iran very well.

Based on what??

Your religious-esque devotion to Obama???

What ya'all just CAN'T address is the simple fact that Democrats embraced, under Obama, the VERY CT tactics they fought against tooth and nail, under Bush...

Therefore, the only, repeat *ONLY*, logical conclusion is that Democrats fought against the safety and security of this country, PURELY to serve a partisan political agenda..

If there is another explanation that fits the facts, let's hear it...

Or you could just go with more childish insults. :D

Michale.....

Back at it again so soon, Kev?

Arguing with Michale and his echo chamber is like trying to eat jello with chopsticks...I presume it can be done, but I'd rather pop a beer and deal with the world as it is. Our hero and leader, CW, posted the only realistic suggestion a short while back. I suggest you follow it. For what little it is worth, from this Weigantian's scorecard, it is you: Umpteen to infinity; the forces of Denseness, zero.
Glad to have you as a new regular :) Glad you liked that video, did you read the author's commentary on the link I posted?

I most certainly can and do. He's the Commander in Chief. He could have stopped both those wars on Day One, if he so desired.

This is the major reason for his international standing falling (a little) but Americans love them. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on these - for or against?

From where I'm sitting, O can't politically afford to take prisoners and interrogate them at Gitmo, lest he wishes the Left to go insane. Hence, the prosecution of war with drones. Do I think it's a good strategy? In terms of O's own political campaign, yes. In terms of the U.S. and allies gathering intel, no. But then again, O seems to always put his own political interests before anything else. So on with the drone strikes we go.

I believe Obama has handled Israel and Iran very well.

I don't. I think Romney — who has no problem stating the name of the captial of Israel — presents a much more no-nonsense/no-excuses stance as Israel's solid ally, and with all options on the table [read: support for a strike on Iran's nuke facilities; no ifs, ands, buts, or squishy language about it].

You were doing well but here comes the drivel and nonsense once more.

Just because you disagree, or refuse to accept the press's double standards, doesn't make it drivel or nonsense, michty. I can just as easily dismiss every word you have to say, using that same tactic. Try dropping the tactics. They got old quite some time ago.

Well I was applying the logic: You like strong regulation + Romney likes very weak regulation

Your personal characterizationa are not one and the same with fact. I didn't use the words "strong regulation," and Romney never said he likes weak regulation. Those are your personal characterizations, conveniently stated in the form of fact. I like sensible, well-balanced regulation; not an OVERLOAD of regulations, which can compromise businesses and jobs. And I don't like creating new government agencies when standard oversight is all that's needed. Those are MY thoughts, and MY words, so don't misrepresent them.

I actually read Mitt Romney's website and policies. Perhaps you could consider doing the same?

Newsflash: I am a political junkie. I read six newspapers a day, bare minimum; plus, the HuffPo blog; plus a variety of Left and Right blogs; plus, dozens of articles I find of Twitter; plus, polls; plus, newsletters; plus, news videos; plus, news documentaries; and, yes, by golly, candidates' sites. So enough with your self-serving suggestions that I do some more reading, otherwise known as yet another of your very tired tactics.

"A Romney administration will act swiftly to tear down the vast edifice of regulations the Obama administration has imposed on the economy"

Yeah, he's referring to the OVERLOAD of regulations that are having a negative impact upon businesses with respect to their ability to grow and HIRE. A lousy economy, with slow-as-hell growth and +8% unemployment, is not the time to be heaping regulations on businesses. That is Romney's stance, and one with which I 100% wholeheartedly agree.

Democrats are all card-carrying members of Al Qaeda.
They love Al Qaeda more than America.
They side with Al Qaeda over America everyday, in fact they are constantly involved in terrorist attacks on America.

You can be facetiously sarcastic all you want..

If it helps you avoid addressing the facts, feel free.

But the facts are this. Democrats opposed nearly every CT policy that the Bush administration put forth...

But when President Obama entered the picture, Democrats couldn't fall over themselves fast enough to embrace the expansion of those same policies.

The fact that those policies have been wildly successful proves beyond ANY doubt that Democrats were WRONG to oppose Bush's CT policies...

It proves beyond ANY doubt that Democrats put THEIR partisan agenda above the SAFETY and SECURITY of this country...

Ironically enough, Democrats were doing back then the EXACT same thing ya'all accuse Republicans of doing now.

These are the facts that no amount of your sarcastic wit will erase...

Michale.....

I thought he was ok, not amazing. Apparently at the Queen Jubilee he was pretty awful and the media have been on his back since this...

"I was a little disappointed though that they didn't let Johnny Lyden make an appearance. And where was Rik Mayall? :)

Hahahaha well I guess you can't fit the entire UK comedy history into the ceremony ;) Mr Bean was good enough imo!

Is THAT what you are REALLY saying??"

Democrats are all card-carrying members of Al Qaeda.
They love Al Qaeda more than America.
They side with Al Qaeda over America everyday, in fact they are constantly involved in terrorist attacks on America.

Is THAT what you are REALLY saying??
What color is the sky on YOUR planet???

Really? That surprises me. His performance didn't strike me as particularly horrible. And I've always been more of a Lennon fan. He may have deserved it for Heather Mills, but not for the opening ceremonies. My thoughts, anyways.

I was a little disappointed though that they didn't let Johnny Lyden make an appearance. And where was Rik Mayall? :)

-David

So, you are saying that Democrats were as completely on board with Bush's CT policies as they are with Obama's continuation of Bush's CT policies???

Is THAT what you are REALLY saying??

What color is the sky on your planet???

Michale.....

David,

Haha I guess I meant if you watch other Olympic ceremonies the fireworks and lighting and everything is over the top - this was actually pretty low key ;)

But yes rammed with British culture! What did you think of McCartney? He is getting absolutely slated in the British press my family told me...

http://www.thereckoner.com/wp-content/uploads/mitt_olympic_savior.png

Not totally over the top and brought a real UK cultural feel to the occasion.

I thought the opening ceremonies was great, michty6. Especially the part w/ Daniel Craig and the Queen parachutist (who gave an absolutely hysterical interview about playing the role of the Queen btw).

But ... not totally over the top?

At one point there was a giant creepy baby in the center of the stadium.

And what about Kenneth Branagh romping around with a giant cigar?

I also don't believe they could have crammed anymore British culture in with a stadium-sized shoehorn. At one point, I yelled, where's McCartney? And, as if on cue, he appeared.

The only thing missing was Def Leppard. (Thankfully, Elton John too ...)

That said ... I thought it was great ... heheheh.

-David

If you're going to spout this utter drivel, nonsense crap then we might as well stop. Go to the forums on RushLimbaugh.com or something instead - they'd eat that up over there.

I agree with most of this, good points and actually just about accurate. Few points:

- You can't call them 'Obama's wars'. He did not invade any countries. The person invading or declaring war is generally considered to be the 'owner' of the war. These are still inherited and I think he has done a good job since inheriting them.
- You know the drone strikes have overwhelming popularity in America (even from Democrats)? This is the major reason for his international standing falling (a little) but Americans love them. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on these - for or against?
- I believe Obama has handled Israel and Iran very well. His foreign diplomacy has been good, definitely a strength. Iran is now facing the toughest sanctions ever seen. Ever. He got almost the entire international community on board. Compared to how Bush handled such events Obama is out the ballpark.

"Mmm, no, the press merely practices a double standard and selective outrage, is all. I can only imagine the reaction if a Republican president were to have given those cheesy Region-1 DVDs as a gift, or handled the removal of the Churchill bust from the Oval Office in that manner. Instead, it was nothing but downplaying, and excuses, and the usual swooning."

You were doing well but here comes the drivel and nonsense once more.

(1)'I can only imagine the reaction if a Republican president' I mean this is the UK MEDIA. Your argument makes no sense - all the UK media are biased in an election they can't vote in?? So basically there is a WORLDWIDE media conspiracy against Republican Presidents even in Conservative UK media? It's absolute nonsense, drivel, rubbish.

(2)How on earth do you think giving a DVD gift is in the slightest way comparable to insulting the country? How on earth do you think 'Obama Brings Strange DVD Gift' is deserved of HEADLINE news? I mean this is really clutching at straws, complete and utter nonsense. You don't even know the context of the gifts, how do you know the last time he visited the UK these DVDs hadn't come up in discussion so he brought them as a joke gift to the PM? Pure and utter nonsense, drivel, speculation - grasping at far away straws.

(3) As for the point about the Churchill bust I mean you could at least Google this story and quickly find out it is absolutely, fully, 100%, complete and utter drivel (lies, nonsense) - these are the sort of false claims I'm talking about. A complete non-story. It's like there are straws 60000 miles away and you are trying to clutch at them.

"I made a general statement about how the Left constantly evokes the "filibuster" as the standard excuse for why O could never get anything accomplished.

Yes you stated pretty clearly that the filibuster wasn't an excuse because Obamacare got passed. As Elizabeth (and I) pointed out this argument isn't valid.

Fact: The filibuster has been used more times ever in the HISTORY of the United States during Obama's first 2 years as President. Deny or confirm this fact?

Assuming you agree, you agree this indicates Republicans have been the most obstructive minority in the Senate in the HISTORY of the US? Which then kind of kills your 'well he should've got stuff done' argument when you're facing the most obstructive minority ever in the HISTORY of America...

"I'm happy though, finally we have found a MASSIVE, MAJOR, HUGE, ENORMOUS reason for you to NOT vote for Romney.

In whose opinion?"

Well I was applying the logic:
You like strong regulation + Romney likes very weak regulation = Massive reason not to vote for him. I would've thought you voted for the person/party that agrees most with your own major views?

"Totally not interested in your personal perceptions and characterizations. Romney (and Republicans) want to repeal Dodd-Frank and start over. And Republicans do not want to return to zero regulations, which led to the 2008 near-meltdown.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/regulation

As someone from the UK I'd love to hear about these bonehead insulting moves Obama has made.

What would be the point?? You have such a quasi-religious/supreme being view of Obama, he could take a dump in the queen's lap and you would think it was the bestest gift in the whole universe...

All the surveillance, drone attacks and torture actually have mass majority support across America.

Under Obama, yes they do... The Democrats LOVE the surveillance, torture, rendition etc etc when it's THEIR guy in charge..

Which simply proves Democrats were playing politics, NOT principles when they opposed the same measures under Bush... Bush had to fight Democrats more than Al Qaeda because the Democrats kept siding with Al Qaeda...

And, when President Romney is sworn in, in Jan 2013, Democrats will flip back and start opposing all the measures they swooned over when Obama was Prez...

Michale.....

Not three-and-half-years into his presidency. O's own record is what's important in the here and now. And his own numbers have gone DOWN, likely owed to his having adopted many of the policies and practices that he had slammed Bush for, on the 2008 campaign trail. Only this isn't 2008 anymore; this is O's war(s) and drone strikes, and O's dealings with Israel and Iran, and O's handling of defense shields, etc. This is O's presidency, not Bush's, and O's reelection bid, not Bush's.

Yes Obama hasn't insulted the UK publicly and for that reason hasn't had his insulted rebuked. HUGE surprise lol.

Mmm, no, the press merely practices a double standard and selective outrage, is all. I can only imagine the reaction if a Republican president were to have given those cheesy Region-1 DVDs as a gift, or handled the removal of the Churchill bust from the Oval Office in that manner. Instead, it was nothing but downplaying, and excuses, and the usual swooning.

Obamacare wasn't passed through a filibuster.

I didn't say it was, so don't ascribe statements to me that I didn't make. Not intersted in those tactics. I made a general statement about how the Left constantly evokes the "filibuster" as the standard excuse for why O could never get anything accomplished. But that's a bogus assertion, since O was able to get CrapCare through DESPITE Sen. Brown's 41-st vote. The Dems employed all sorts of tactics to push CrapCare through.

Awesome! And I never said you didn't say this, again read my post.

You asserted that I make false statements, only to proceed to agree with my statements. Hence, my comment.

I'm happy though, finally we have found a MASSIVE, MAJOR, HUGE, ENORMOUS reason for you to NOT vote for Romney.

In whose opinion?

If you think the problem with Dodd-Frank was it was too weak

IMO, it was a huge mess, just like CrapCare.

then voting for a guy who openly wants to repeal it and destroy regulations (i.e. what caused the Great Recession of 2008-2009) would seem like a pretty illogical move?

Totally not interested in your personal perceptions and characterizations. Romney (and Republicans) want to repeal Dodd-Frank and start over. And Republicans do not want to return to zero regulations, which led to the 2008 near-meltdown. Republicans were the ones who wanted to regulated OTC derivatives in the first place, back in 1998, following the FIRST near-meltdown. Only Clinton's economic team flat-out lied to congress, and congress followed their recommendations. Learn the facts: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

This video should be required viewing for all American voters:"

You mean this video right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=16K6m3Ua2nw

Agreed - awesome!

Bush isn't running for office, michty."

When Obama is trying to repair all the damage Bush did with International relations, his record is very much in the question. I have pointed this out to you several times before, Internationally the record of the guy before you is very important.

"At no point was Candidate or President Obama ever directly rebuked by the UK PM or London Major publicly in the way Romney was.

Gosh, what a surprise."

Yes Obama hasn't insulted the UK publicly and for that reason hasn't had his insulted rebuked. HUGE surprise lol. Must be the liberal media right? All bad coverage = liberal media; all good coverage = fair media right??

"I don't make false claims."

I actually said "Finally, at last, we can have a good discussion not around your rhetoric and false claims" and I stand by this. You absolutely do make false claims based on rhetoric, not facts, throughout this forum. For example even in this thread:

"So the Left's standard "filibuster" excuse doesn't wash. If O was capable of getting CrapCare passed — against the will of the American people, no less — he was just as capable of getting anything else passed."

As Elizabeth pointed out in [73] Obamacare wasn't passed through a filibuster. So saying that since he was capable of getting this through the filibuster he should've been capable of getting other things through the filibuster is a false claim.

"For one, I don't think Dodd-Frank went far enough.
That's what I said.

Clearly, the problem wasn't solved, evidenced by the MF Global event...
"

Awesome! And I never said you didn't say this, again read my post.

I'm happy though, finally we have found a MASSIVE, MAJOR, HUGE, ENORMOUS reason for you to NOT vote for Romney. If you think the problem with Dodd-Frank was it was too weak then voting for a guy who openly wants to repeal it and destroy regulations (i.e. what caused the Great Recession of 2008-2009) would seem like a pretty illogical move? FYI illogical wouldn't be my choice word I'd go with: disastrous, calamitous, crazy, stupid, idiotic - one of those...

"But he didn't lead, which was my point. So where's the false claim? There are none."

I didn't say you made false claims on this, here let me find what I did say oh yes "I agree with this" lol. I said Michale made some 'nonsense unsubstantiated rhetoric' in [65-68] about Obamacare and I stand by this.

Bush isn't running for office, michty.

At no point was Candidate or President Obama ever directly rebuked by the UK PM or London Major publicly in the way Romney was.

Gosh, what a surprise.

Finally, at last, we can have a good discussion not around your rhetoric and false claims

I don't make false claims.

For one, I don't think Dodd-Frank went far enough.

That's what I said. So where's the false claim?

But if you're criticising Obama for not doing enough to regulate Wall Street

Clearly, the problem wasn't solved, evidenced by the MF Global event: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/mf-global-six-billion-dollar-bet/

But I think Obama should be a man of his word and do things by the book. I think if he actually LED on these (like he has other issues) people would change their minds and follow.

But he didn't lead, which was my point. So where's the false claim? There are none. Nor is there any refutation from the Left. Just the usual false claims about making false claims, and an accusation of "rhetoric," followed by the Left's own rhetoric.

If you replace "effective" with "super", I would agree with you...

Go ahead. That's a difference without distinction. A super majority would allow for effective control of the Senate.

By the way, what you and Chris1962 fail to recognize or admit to here is that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed into law only as a result of a reconciliation process since Obama did NOT have a super majority in the Senate at that time, either.

Elizabeth "Careful there, your desperation is showing."

Agree. Trying to defend Romney for something indefensible. I mean even Michale conceded it was a stupid thing to say. But Chris won't give up... here again:

Chris62 "I'm not seeing anywhere near the gaffes that Obama made; neither in quantity nor scope."

Insulting the host country preparations for the Olympics is not a gaffe. Bringing up quantity is laughable (1 trip compared to many) but here are more 'gaffes':
- Calling the Labour party leader 'Mr Leader' is a gaffe.
- Telling DC how good the view out the 'backside' of 10 Downing St is is a 'gaffe'.
- Publicly stating he met with M16 - gaffe.
- 'Anglo-Saxan' lines - gaffes (didn't come from Romney himself)

Nobody cares about those things. I certainly don't. Those things did not make front page headlines in the UK and result in being rebuked by the UK PM and London Major - insulting the preparations is what did.

Michale "But that doesn't change the fact that Obama's cuts into our greatest ally go much MUCH deeper.." "And YES... It was NOTHING compared to all the bonehead moves Obama has done over the last three years..."

As someone from the UK I'd love to hear about these bonehead insulting moves Obama has made. I can tell you right now Obama's approval rating in the UK is considerably higher than Bush and higher than his approval rating in America for sure... This is a losing argument that you guys keep bringing up. At no point was Candidate or President Obama ever directly rebuked by the UK PM or London Major publicly in the way Romney was.

Michale"Obama's domestic surveillance actions, his assassinating Americans w/o due process, rendition, torture, etc "
Chris62 "O came into office with huge majorities in the House and Senate. Did he fix the Wall Street problem that caused the near-meltdown? No"

Wow finally you criticise Obama and actually name policies! Amazing! Finally, at last, we can have a good discussion not around your rhetoric and false claims (I have chosen to ignore the rest of the nonsense in your posts, Elizabeth has dealt with these).

I fully agree with all these criticisms. However, I think I disagree with them for completely different reasons than you guys do...

For one, I don't think Dodd-Frank went far enough. Of course this is completely laughable in light of the fact Romney wants to repeal it. But if you're criticising Obama for not doing enough to regulate Wall Street you should consider the fact that your Republican candidate wants to have them be even less regulated than under Bush. But good luck with that, if Romney is elected my investments are being sold. You can suffer the next crash but not with my money. I'll take a page out of Romney's book and stash my money elsewhere. He and I will be ok.

All the surveillance, drone attacks and torture actually have mass majority support across America. But I think Obama should be a man of his word and do things by the book. I think if he actually LED on these (like he has other issues) people would change their minds and follow. Again your Republican candidate wants to take all these things one step further. So criticising Obama in light of what the other guy (you support) wants to do is laughable.

Michale "For a time, he DID have a Super Majority in the Senate"

Nope. You know a super-majority is 60 right?

Michale "He could have really made some changes that would have helped this country.

But he threw it all away to pursue ObamaCare that the majority of Americans didn't want and hasn't helped ANYTHING worth a damn..."

I agree with this. Obama had a choice to make: pursue healthcare with a majority in Congress, eating up a lot of political capital in doing so; or make a lot of other changes.

I have criticised Obama for not leading and taking the easy route in this very post just above. But for once leading is what he did here and Americans for generations to come are going to thank him for finally getting them some form of Universal Healthcare.

Through his leadership, the public opinion on Obamacare is now starting to turn in favour of it - and that's BEFORE it has even been enacted in full and WITH people being fed all the other nonsense unsubstantiated rhetoric that makes up the rest of your posts in this thread from 65-68...

Just for fun, you should check back to the posts I made here around the time Obama won the nomination but before his chose his vice presidential running mate; that was the time I was most critical of then Senator Obama. :)

If I agree with everything bad you say about Republicans, THEN could we discuss how badly Obama screwed up???

Absolutely! In fact, I would love to have that discussion with you.

As you know, I was an early supporter of Biden for President; Obama redeemed himself in my book only when he chose wisely for vice president. :)

No matter how you slice it, ObamaCare/Tax wasn't one of those great things..

And he got CrapCare through DESPITE the election of Scott Brown (Senator 41). So the Left's standard "filibuster" excuse doesn't wash. If O was capable of getting CrapCare passed — against the will of the American people, no less — he was just as capable of getting anything else passed.

That's it..

The actual quality of care is going to plummet, be tons more expensive and a LOT harder to get.

Michale.....

And what would that be, exactly??

Provide care???

How can the insurance corporations provide care with a huge shortage of doctors??

83% of Doctors already practicing have considered leaving the field because of ObamaCare..

New doctors being trained fall way WAY short of what is needed...

Sure, Insurance Corporations will be HAPPY to take Americans' money. The corporations will be HAPPY to slap a COVERED stamp on more and more Americans..

But THAT won't mean diddley squat if there are no doctors to actually provide the *CARE* in Health Care...

So yea.. Ostensibly, Americans will be covered...

But will they actually receive the *CARE* that their coverage entitles them to??

THAT is the relevant question here..

Michale.....

Personally, I think it should be illegal for Presidential Candidates to solicit money outside of the US...

It's an American election and candidates should only seek money within America...

Michale.....

I am not defending CB. She has amply shown she is quite capable in that regard.. :D

I am, however, defending her opinion, because it happens to be dead on ballz accurate...

Obama DID have a lock on all aspects of government.

For a time, he DID have a Super Majority in the Senate and a HUGE majority in the House.

He could have accomplished some great things.

No matter how you slice it, ObamaCare/Tax wasn't one of those great things..

As I know you are aware, Obama had an effective majority in Congress for a little more than a month, if that long. Republicans used the filibuster to prevent all manner of effective action proposed by the Obama/Biden administration, from day one until the present. This is not open for debate.

If you replace "effective" with "super", I would agree with you...

As far as Republicans using filibuster, that's the way it goes. Democrats tried to use the filibuster too when they were the minority. They are just lousy'er at it..

And, you mentioned that Obama is helping corporations. Ah, that would be ass-backwards. The Republican cult of economic failure is doing everything in its power - as we write - to assist in the cause of corporations to the detriment of small businesses, families, and the ever-shrinking middle-class, in general.

If I agree with everything bad you say about Republicans, THEN could we discuss how badly Obama screwed up???

Michale....

In discussing healthcare reform, why is it that you always leave out the part about what insurance companies are forced to do in return for insuring more Americans?

I think I know now why you defend her ... she is quite obviously not capable of defending herself. While that is somewhat valiant of you, I just hope she doesn't bring you down with her. Because down she is going if she persists in spreading her nonsense around here. Let that be a lesson to you, my friend. I mean that sincerely - I'm not trying to be facetious here.

As I know you are aware, Obama had an effective majority in Congress for a little more than a month, if that long. Republicans used the filibuster to prevent all manner of effective action proposed by the Obama/Biden administration, from day one until the present. This is not open for debate.

And, you mentioned that Obama is helping corporations. Ah, that would be ass-backwards. The Republican cult of economic failure is doing everything in its power - as we write - to assist in the cause of corporations to the detriment of small businesses, families, and the ever-shrinking middle-class, in general.

Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen With Health Law
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/health/policy/too-few-doctors-in-many-us-communities.html?_r=2&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

What ya'all don't get about ObamaCare is that it only increased the COVERAGE for Americans... Which, of course, makes the Insurance Corporations very VERY happy..

The QUALITY of health CARE itself is going to go down. WAY down...

And the AVAILABILITY of health CARE is going to plummet...

So yea.. ObamaCare means more Americans will be paying more money to health insurance companies..

But less Americans are actually going to be able to find treatment, are going to have to wait longer for that hard to find treatment and the treatment that is hard to find and requires longer waits will simply be crappy...

But hay.. At least Obama is helping out the corporations.

That's a good thing.. Right??

Michale....

Huge majorities in the House and Senate? Are you sure about that?

I am..

Com'on Liz... Let's be factual here...

Obama had an UNPRECEDENTED lock on all aspects of government when he assumed the presidency..

He could have really made some changes that would have helped this country.

But he threw it all away to pursue ObamaCare that the majority of Americans didn't want and hasn't helped ANYTHING worth a damn...

I understand your devotion to Obama, but the reality is, Obama blew it..

Anyone who looks at things objectively would say the same thing..

Michale.....

Huge majorities in the House and Senate? Are you sure about that?

The Dodd-Frank Act is the most expansive fin reg regime passed in generations. It has not even been completely implemented yet as many of the rules are still being written ... rules, you must know, that Republicans and their Wall Street lobbyist friends are working extremely hard to weaken.

President Obama withdrew all combat forces from Iraq well ahead of the Bush-Maliki SOFA. How do you not know this?

As for Afghanistan ... President Obama would have been better served if he had followed the advice of President Biden ---oops, I mean Vice President Biden; glad I caught this one in my self-edit...must have been some sort of Freudian slip, or something--- and steered clear away from McCrystal (and his fantastical report) and the other "commanders on the ground". At least Obama has set a deadline of 2014 to end the madness. We can only hope that he sticks to it because this mess isn't going to be solved by US/NATO troops on the ground. Not now, not ever ... primarily because the last administration messed up the entire response to 9/11 so badly that not even a super hero of Herculean strength could clean up the monumental mess they left behind in Afghanistan.

You really must restrain yourself and stop posting nonsense and other misinformation on this otherwise enlightened site.

You should be able to make your points and even post your misguided opinions here without making assertions that have no factual basis.

You do know the difference, don't you, between fact and opinion? :)

O came into office with huge majorities in the House and Senate. Did he fix the Wall Street problem that caused the near-meltdown? No. (Crozine's MF Global debacle is evidence of that: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/mf-global-six-billion-dollar-bet/) Did he stop the Iraq war even so much as one day sooner than the exit date set by Bush and the Iraqi government in the SOFA agreement? No. Did he even try to negotiate an earlier withdrawal? No. Is the Afghanistan war still going strong? Uh-huh.

At some point, O simply has to own up to his own failures.

...the last time a president and a congress enacted a truly sensible economic policy was 1990...

... and there won't be a sound economic policy enacted by Congress next year, either, unless Democrats win an EFFECTIVE majority in both houses of Congress (winning the White House shouldn't be a problem) and thus relegate the Republican cult of economic failure to a position where they can no longer do any harm to the well-being of the nation.

looks like i missed the party.

Indeed.

yes, bush2 was largely responsible for the conditions under obama, just as clinton was largely responsible for the conditions under bush, and so on, and so on. ultimately, each president will be looked at in terms of what they contributed, both to themselves and to those who came after them. in my opinion, the last time a president and a congress enacted a truly sensible economic policy was 1990, and as thanks they were both summarily removed from power by the voters.

~joshua

How would go about assassinating American terrorists abroad WITH due process?

Heh.

No, it's simply that what YOU call "hysterical" is just a factual representation of Obama's actions..

On the other hand, it IS a documented fact that Bush did not lie... But when Obama claimed that people WOULD be able to keep their own Health Insurance, he DID lie...

When Obama said that illegals wouldn't get access to health care, he DID lie...

And so on and so on and so on...

If you want to consider that "hysterical" be my guest...

Again, my point of all this was to show my simple amazement that we are all on the same page as to Obama's domestic surveillance actions, his assassinating Americans w/o due process, rendition, torture, etc etc etc...

It's nice that, at least with this, all of Weigantia is in agreement.. :D

Michale.....

Smart move. The Olympics is a national event. I see no problem putting federal dollars behind it — especially if the event is in trouble.

Care to summarize what that link says and tell us, in your own words, how Clinton's economic team caused the most destructive global financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Be sure and point out what the situation was in January 2001 as compared to January 2009, 'kay?

You should know, I hate clicking on links ... :)

Anyhow, thanks, and hope you're not broiling too badly in Ontario; although I get the impression from your travels that you don't mind heat :)

Naw ... I've been lounging poolside all day. :)

It couldn't possibly get too hot for me ... as long as there is water nearby...

Feel free... I was just struck how, if you changed "BUSH" to "OBAMA" it would sound EXACTLY like me talking in the here and now...

I am just finishing up my work day, then gots to go to JAX to pick up the wife... I'll pen my "ideal" America probably tomorrow morning...

:D

Michale

Clinton's economic team was responsible for the near-meltdown. Make that both near-meltdowns. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

Michale: Coming from you, I'm proud to take that as a compliment :) Yet strangely, I still feel calm. Ball's in your court...tell us your vision of an ideal America.

Congrats.. You just had a "hysterical" Anti-Bush rant.. :D

Michale.....

This video should be required viewing for all American voters:

http://welcomebacktopottersville.blogspot.ca/

Some other examples of the fictitious U.S. world I'd like to live in: "The American President", "Dave", and the "West Wing". I know I'm a sucker for Sorkin, but I'd like to think I share his world view :)

Yes, sadly, Elizabeth, I smoke. I KNOW I have to quit; but I'm living in a hyper-stressful situation which makes it easier said than done :(

Anyhow, thanks, and hope you're not broiling too badly in Ontario; although I get the impression from your travels that you don't mind heat :)

Seriously, very nice rant!

"So, you're saying that NO ONE here on CW.COM commented negatively about Bush during the Bush years??"

No, as per usual I never said that. If criticizing Bush meets your definition of "screaming", then I'll concede the point in your world. Given all the "joy" the Bush regime brought to the U.S. and the rest of the world; to not criticize would be to live in a world where everything a sane person believes was turned up-side down. Ignoring intelligence warnings about 9/11? Check. Lying about Iraq? Check. Turning Clinton's surpluses into deficits? Check. Allowing New Orleans to be bludgeoned by incompetence? Check. Letting the financial sector run wild to the point of nearly reprising 1929? Check. In my world, people thought the Republicans should be held accountable; in yours apparently not so much, you seem strangely eager to return to the world-view that led to all those greatest hits.
As best I can figure, when Obama didn't turn out to be Tom Clancy's fictitious Jack Ryan, you took it personally. I enjoy Clancy's books, but even through pleasure reading I could see where the extremely wealthy Clancy had embraced the most congratulatory myths of Republican dogma. It's FICTION, Michale, like most of the quotes you use to smugly "prove" your points.
I have NO IDEA the type of world you want to live in, where everyone should be armed, health care is a privilege and not a right, torture is OK, shooting unarmed people can be rationalized, and Republican politicians holding the U.S. and world economies hostage is anything other than treasonous. Most people don't want to live in that world. And to think I felt sorry for you, living in a state with one of the worst examples of bad govern-ship in the country.
Whew...think I'll take a break for a cigarette :)

I'll try and keep that in mind... :D

Michale

So, you're saying that NO ONE here on CW.COM commented negatively about Bush during the Bush years??

You must have just arrived from a parallel dimension..

How was the weather in your world?? :D

Michale....