Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Question about President-elect Obama.
Cabe2323
Member Posts: 2,939
So now that Obama has made some choices for key positions what does everyone think? I would especially like to hear from Obama supporters that were voting for him because he represented change. Do you still feel that way?
Personally I am happy with a lot of his choices so far. The economy is bad and he is choosing a lot of Clinton people (Clinton was fairly fiscally conservative) so that gives me some hope. Of course these more moderate choices (most of his choices so far are not really ideological people and instead are experts) seem to have upset some of Obama's more liberal supporters.
Do you think Obama will now govern differently from how he campaigned he was going to govern?
I see that Obama has stated that repealing the tax cuts on the rich would hurt the Economy right now. (Isn't that what McCain kept saying during the debates?) So he is planning on letting them expire in 2010 (I guess as long as the economy is doing better).
Discuss. 
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Comments
Not much to say, really.
Do you see a lot of change?
I hope some money is left of the TARP fund to help regular Americans, but I doubt it.
To be honest though, I am very excited and, overall, encouraged. Bush is doing nothing, and Obama is trying, right now, to fill that vacuum of leadership in the White House. Obama has great ideas, and I think he has strength of mind and character to "change" things. Unfortunately, he has inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. People will have a million and one ideas on how to fix it, including this writer, and we will see what happens. I anticipate the economy will get worse before it gets better until something drastic happens.
The Great Depression was caused when the Federal Reserve cut off capital and credit to the public.
Today, the major banks, now organized as Federally Chartered Banks, are the intermediary between you bank and the Federal Reserve.
They have cut off credit and capital to the public, small businesses, etc.
Literally, they are causing this crisis. They are hoarding the money, there is no transparency, they can use that money to pay THEMSELVES bonsuses and dividends, and they are buying solvent smaller banks.
So far, he's done pretty well. Sticking with people from the center is smart. If the Hillary appointment works out, it'll be brilliant. She is the the right of him on foreign policy,which is a good thing in its own right, and neutralizes his only effective challenge from within his party.
I'm glad we're not seeing much CHANGE and makes me more HOPEful for the future. Kind sad though when you are happy that a candidate is a fake, and his fakeness is what is good about him.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I think when I heard that the Clinton camp is returning to the White House, I was like... how will the public react to this "change"? Hehehe.
We, Americans, if we want change, we have to do it ourselves. I almost refuse to say this anymore because it is insanely obvious.
Change will only come when the public participates in their institutions. No other way. Not even voting, though voting is a part, one small albeit important part, of participating.
I think when I heard that the Clinton camp is returning to the White House, I was like... how will the public react to this "change"? Hehehe.
We, Americans, if we want change, we have to do it ourselves. I almost refuse to say this anymore because it is insanely obvious.
Change will only come when the public participates in their institutions. No other way. Not even voting, though voting is a part, one small albeit important part, of participating.
Well, I have always wanted change, which is what I vote for. You republicrats get what you ask for -- no change; every year our government gets bigger and our freedom gets smaller. Thanks a bunch.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Well yeah, we're not seeing much change - if you ignore 2000-2008. This pattern of reasonable, fiscally conservative, evidence-based sound thinking worked pretty damn well for us. This philosophical deadland of neoconservative thought is behind us. And that's a huge change.
If you believe working with other people, designing philosophies that work, and sticking to solid people who ACTUALLY KNOW HOW TO DO THEIR JOB, isn't a change, I suggest you take a good look at the White House we have now. People who know how to do their job is change I can believe in.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Well yeah, we're not seeing much change - if you ignore 2000-2008. This pattern of reasonable, fiscally conservative, evidence-based sound thinking worked pretty damn well for us. This philosophical deadland of neoconservative thought is behind us. And that's a huge change.
If you believe working with other people, designing philosophies that work, and sticking to solid people who ACTUALLY KNOW HOW TO DO THEIR JOB, isn't a change, I suggest you take a good look at the White House we have now. People who know how to do their job is change I can believe in.
What is "neoconservative thought?" Please define the term.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Okay, we're going to talk about American politics now, which is something I know you don't have much experience with, but stick with me here and we'll get through it.
The key trait of the neoconservative movement is that they are an aggressive outgrowth of the the failed 'change the world' communists and traditional conservatives. They favor a strong, interventionist foreign policy that actively seeks to protect Americas interests abroad through aggressive action, including the use of military force. This ideology clearly derives from the concept of 'controlling the world' that was so popular in the communistic school of thought, but found root in the traditional conservative movement, harking back to the Teddy Roosevelt school of international diplomacy. It found root with the evangelical Christians, and ended up tacking on a bunch of various conservative concepts. The result was a weird outgrowth of the crusader mentality, combined with a disturbingly violent foreign policy.
It found its culmination in the administration of George W. Bush, who strongly follows the precepts of the neoconservative movement.
For further information, please see the writings of the American Heritage Foundation and the Project for the New American Century, both neoconservative think tanks who are largely discredited now, but were much more influential in the 90s.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Voting is one small part of effecting change. If the public thinks that by voting change can be effected, they are incredibly wrong. Statutes, federal regulations favor, literally in writing, certain pharmaceutical companies and corporate farmers (as well as other industries such as timber, oil, and coal). You would have to not only change the President, and the Congress to change the statutes, but also the officers and directors of the major executive departments. Change is only achieved when the public, the citizens, are well educated, informed, and actively participate in their own institutions.
You conservatives, on the other hand, are waiting for a Ronald Reagan (who, himself, was not Ronald Reagan) to grab your arm and lead you over the rainbow. I am not even sure, reading history, what Reagan did that was so special. His tax reforms is why the workers are taxed more as they earn more, and why the top brackets pay less - why dividends and capital gains are so low. His tax reform policies shifted the burden of the empire onto the working class. Is that the change the workes want? if so, I am totally fine with it. Totally fine with it.
My hope, and prayer, is that the public gets so screwed --loss of money, rights, job, social security, health care, etc.-- that they participate. Take more of their money and more of their rights, then they will have no choice but to get:
I think enough people would get "smart and participate" out of necessity, and then we would have serious reforms in the area of taxation, health care, defense, and foreign policy to be pro-American again and pro Middle-Class worker. More capitalism, and more liberty, will result in a stronger economy, better government, and a more healthier population.
Today's corporate welfarism makes the USA look like a banana republic, and this is what Nobel Prize winning Economist Joseph Stiglizt himself has said. I do not have to say that, as a joke or for effect, this is what the smartest minds are saying.
The bankers, and possibly certain industries such as auto -now credit card companies are magically becoming banks overnight- are getting "saved."
YOU, the consumer, however, are not.
This is causing a depression.
No leader can "change" things, per se, unless that leader turned-against the establishment, which I do not necessarily advise someone to do!!
Some liberals looked at his senate votes as an indication of how he would act as president. He never campaigned to govern as he voted in the senate. It's a different job and requires a different focus. I'm not sure why people can't understand that a politician can acknowledge all of the populace when they make decisions. The president doesn't represent one political faction, so it's unrealistic to expect a president to cater to only one group.
The people who wanted a far left president took him because he was the only liberal choice. Anyone who thought he would enact a liberal agenda missed the memo.
I'm not bothered at all. I voted for him because I think he has the better judgment. I think he will take all views into consideration, and all advice under careful scrutiny, which is exactly what we need.
Pretty much. Not a lot has been revealed thus far, but the things that have come up are completely in-line with the reasons I voted for Obama.
Case in point, the item at the top of his agenda is an economic stimulus plan for working Americans in the form of a direct payroll tax cut, rather than a tax rebate sent via the mail.
There was also his broader two-year economic plan revealed just yesterday I think, or the day before that centers around creating 2.5 million jobs; all in areas he promised to pay attention to like rebuilding our infrastructure, schools, wind farms & solar panels, and fuel-efficient cars.
I also like the way he delivered that economic plan usin' a new YouTube channel. That's in-line with his promise to make the White House more open and accessible.
I'm also impressed Obama has as much influence as he has over Bush's administration before he even has any executive power himself. I was actually a bit nervous a couple of weeks ago when Obama said 'one president at a time'. Makes sense, but I'm glad he's having the pull he does.
It took Paulson a month maybe to spend over a third of the bailout money, and on everything except the troubled assets cited as the reason to pass the measure in the first place. So I was assured to hear Bush had decided to leave at least half of the bailout money for Obama's administration and specifically the new treasury picks.
There's also the recent news of Obama's involvemnt on the recent Citigroup decision, and Obama's advocacy for saving the auto-industry.
I also like the stance Obama's kept on spending. Basically he'll spend as much as necessary to solve the economic crisis. I'm one of the voters who didn't care how big Obama's spending budget got; so long as the money was spent as a sound investment in the country as a whole; because I believe those will have positive results.
Basically though, if you look at Obama's spending promises from the campaign:
-Green spending
-Infrastructure
-Tax cuts for middle-class Americans
-Health care
He's already addressed immediate plans for the top three listed before taking office, and naturally they work for solutions to the economic crisis we're in.
As for Obama's staff appointments being Clinton-heavy. I don't see a reason to have a problem with it. As far as I know, fiscally, Clinton's presidency was the only one in American history where spending didn't exceed the budget.
A broader point to make when it comes to the subjectives of "Change" is, for young people my age (I'm 24), the first time we got to vote was Kerry vs. Bush. Those older than me might've gotten a chance to vote Gore vs. Bush, but you'd be hard pressed to find a person beneath 30 that got to vote either for or against Clinton, and yet and still there's many younger than me who were only able to vote for the first time this election season.
Point being, it's not easy for a person like me, a young voter, to have any particular feelings towards the Clintons, especially specific staff members. So you gotta understand, if there was a referendum for "Change", which there was, it was completely against Bush.
Older Obama voters fell in line for the exact same rhetoric against 8-more years of Bush's policies, never 16-years of Clinton-Bush policies, or something goin' even further back than that.
So as long as Obama sticks with that, we'll feel the "Change". If he appoints someone from the Carter or Clinton administrations, it doesn't equate as something like keeping Condy to us. I'm a-ok with whoevers right for the job.
Voting is one small part of effecting change. If the public thinks that by voting change can be effected, they are incredibly wrong. Statutes, federal regulations favor, literally in writing, certain pharmaceutical companies and corporate farmers (as well as other industries such as timber, oil, and coal). You would have to not only change the President, and the Congress to change the statutes, but also the officers and directors of the major executive departments. Change is only achieved when the public, the citizens, are well educated, informed, and actively participate in their own institutions.
You conservatives, on the other hand, are waiting for a Ronald Reagan (who, himself, was not Ronald Reagan) to grab your arm and lead you over the rainbow. I am not even sure, reading history, what Reagan did that was so special. His tax reforms is why the workers are taxed more as they earn more, and why the top brackets pay less - why dividends and capital gains are so low. His tax reform policies shifted the burden of the empire onto the working class. Is that the change the workes want? if so, I am totally fine with it. Totally fine with it.
My hope, and prayer, is that the public gets so screwed --loss of money, rights, job, social security, health care, etc.-- that they participate. Take more of their money and more of their rights, then they will have no choice but to get:
I think enough people would get "smart and participate" out of necessity, and then we would have serious reforms in the area of taxation, health care, defense, and foreign policy to be pro-American again and pro Middle-Class worker. More capitalism, and more liberty, will result in a stronger economy, better government, and a more healthier population.
Today's corporate welfarism makes the USA look like a banana republic, and this is what Nobel Prize winning Economist Joseph Stiglizt himself has said. I do not have to say that, as a joke or for effect, this is what the smartest minds are saying.
The bankers, and possibly certain industries such as auto -now credit card companies are magically becoming banks overnight- are getting "saved."
YOU, the consumer, however, are not.
This is causing a depression.
No leader can "change" things, per se, unless that leader turned-against the establishment, which I do not necessarily advise someone to do!!
I'm not a conservative, so I don't know who you are trying to address with all your pretty colors and stuff.
I'm waiting for freedom, and work for it every day. YOU do not, whatever you are. You want more of the same, and you've gotten it. Yay for you.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Voting is one small part of effecting change. If the public thinks that by voting change can be effected, they are incredibly wrong. Statutes, federal regulations favor, literally in writing, certain pharmaceutical companies and corporate farmers (as well as other industries such as timber, oil, and coal). You would have to not only change the President, and the Congress to change the statutes, but also the officers and directors of the major executive departments. Change is only achieved when the public, the citizens, are well educated, informed, and actively participate in their own institutions.
You conservatives, on the other hand, are waiting for a Ronald Reagan (who, himself, was not Ronald Reagan) to grab your arm and lead you over the rainbow. I am not even sure, reading history, what Reagan did that was so special. His tax reforms is why the workers are taxed more as they earn more, and why the top brackets pay less - why dividends and capital gains are so low. His tax reform policies shifted the burden of the empire onto the working class. Is that the change the workes want? if so, I am totally fine with it. Totally fine with it.
My hope, and prayer, is that the public gets so screwed --loss of money, rights, job, social security, health care, etc.-- that they participate. Take more of their money and more of their rights, then they will have no choice but to get:
I think enough people would get "smart and participate" out of necessity, and then we would have serious reforms in the area of taxation, health care, defense, and foreign policy to be pro-American again and pro Middle-Class worker. More capitalism, and more liberty, will result in a stronger economy, better government, and a more healthier population.
Today's corporate welfarism makes the USA look like a banana republic, and this is what Nobel Prize winning Economist Joseph Stiglizt himself has said. I do not have to say that, as a joke or for effect, this is what the smartest minds are saying.
The bankers, and possibly certain industries such as auto -now credit card companies are magically becoming banks overnight- are getting "saved."
YOU, the consumer, however, are not.
This is causing a depression.
No leader can "change" things, per se, unless that leader turned-against the establishment, which I do not necessarily advise someone to do!!
You want more of the same, and you've gotten it. Yay for you.
Overall, what I want is irrelevant. I was addressing the change the public wanted.
The premise is crystal clear: if the public wants change, they have to effect it themselves.
By not participating, the public implicitly tells the establishment: it is OK to tax me as I earn more money; it is OK to reduce my Constitutionally protected rights; it is OK to bail-out bankers at the costs, and expense of the economy; it is OK to lose multiple wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) and attack others (Syria, Pakistan) at the same time and try to fight more (Iran).
People expect others to get elected, and, then, somehow/someway implement policies and execute decisions to help those that are (a) not paying attention and (b) do not know what is going on.
It does not, and cannot, happen.
Please define "freedom." Explain how we do not have it.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Please define "freedom." Explain how we do not have it.
Freedom is the lack of coercion of other human beings -- at least in taht context that was how I was using it. But I feel you knew that, and weren't asking a serious question.
It would take way more than an internet post to explain where we don't have it. At any rate, I've outlined such in hundreds of posts, many of which you have answered yourself, so I have a feeling again you weren't asking a serious question.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Okay, we're going to talk about American politics now, which is something I know you don't have much experience with, but stick with me here and we'll get through it.
The key trait of the neoconservative movement is that they are an aggressive outgrowth of the the failed 'change the world' communists and traditional conservatives. They favor a strong, interventionist foreign policy that actively seeks to protect Americas interests abroad through aggressive action, including the use of military force. This ideology clearly derives from the concept of 'controlling the world' that was so popular in the communistic school of thought, but found root in the traditional conservative movement, harking back to the Teddy Roosevelt school of international diplomacy. It found root with the evangelical Christians, and ended up tacking on a bunch of various conservative concepts. The result was a weird outgrowth of the crusader mentality, combined with a disturbingly violent foreign policy.
It found its culmination in the administration of George W. Bush, who strongly follows the precepts of the neoconservative movement.
For further information, please see the writings of the American Heritage Foundation and the Project for the New American Century, both neoconservative think tanks who are largely discredited now, but were much more influential in the 90s.
The American Heritage Foundation is neo-con??? they are a bastion of traditional conservative thinking, there is nothing "neo" about them.
Bush is no more an interventionist than Reagan or Nixon or any other traditional conservative. Please prove he is an "interventionist." let me see the list of peaceful, law-abiding nations that Bush has intervened in, and how his intervention differs from the intervention we saw under Clinton, or Reagan?
According to your definition, Reagan is a neconservative. Nixon is too, So is Bill Clinton, G> Bush the first, Hillary Clinton. So are almost all conservatives, and most liberals.
In other words, all conservatives other than pat Buchanan are neo-conservatives. All non-isolationist liberals are as well.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Please define "freedom." Explain how we do not have it.
Freedom is the lack of coercion of other human beings -- at least in taht context that was how I was using it. But I feel you knew that, and weren't asking a serious question.
It would take way more than an internet post to explain where we don't have it. At any rate, I've outlined such in hundreds of posts, many of which you have answered yourself, so I have a feeling again you weren't asking a serious question.
Says the person who asked me what a neoconservative was.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Please define "freedom." Explain how we do not have it.
Freedom is the lack of coercion of other human beings -- at least in taht context that was how I was using it. But I feel you knew that, and weren't asking a serious question.
It would take way more than an internet post to explain where we don't have it. At any rate, I've outlined such in hundreds of posts, many of which you have answered yourself, so I have a feeling again you weren't asking a serious question.
Says the person who asked me what a neoconservative was.
Your pont is? I asked you a serious question, and have shown how nebulous your definition is, so much that almost every known conservative -- and most liberals -- can qualify as "neo-con."
I have a pretty standard classical liberal definition of freedom, and you know it -- which is why I feel you were not asking serioys questions. I however was, and made my point in my answer to you. You use a word that has no real meaning in a way that blurs issues.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The sine qua non of freedom is the law, or rights, which are codified freedoms.
Our rights, per the Constitution, regulate what the government can -but more importantly- cannot do.
Freedom of thought; freedom of expression; freedom to contract (restricted, unfortunately, now in some states); freedom of religion.
Edit
Liberty, on the other hand, is a choice. Liberty, actually, is really an opportunity. An opportunity to make the right, correct, and lawful choice. The opportunity to choose to be the best person you can be, and comport yourself in such a manner to achieve that end. The opportunity to choose to fulfill your potential as a person.
We will either choose to be a country of freedom, or choose to be a country of busted bail-outs. The choice, ultimately, is ours. A republic - if YOU can keep it.
Okay, we're going to talk about American politics now, which is something I know you don't have much experience with, but stick with me here and we'll get through it.
The key trait of the neoconservative movement is that they are an aggressive outgrowth of the the failed 'change the world' communists and traditional conservatives. They favor a strong, interventionist foreign policy that actively seeks to protect Americas interests abroad through aggressive action, including the use of military force. This ideology clearly derives from the concept of 'controlling the world' that was so popular in the communistic school of thought, but found root in the traditional conservative movement, harking back to the Teddy Roosevelt school of international diplomacy. It found root with the evangelical Christians, and ended up tacking on a bunch of various conservative concepts. The result was a weird outgrowth of the crusader mentality, combined with a disturbingly violent foreign policy.
It found its culmination in the administration of George W. Bush, who strongly follows the precepts of the neoconservative movement.
For further information, please see the writings of the American Heritage Foundation and the Project for the New American Century, both neoconservative think tanks who are largely discredited now, but were much more influential in the 90s.
The American Heritage Foundation is neo-con??? they are a bastion of traditional conservative thinking, there is nothing "neo" about them.
"Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives[citation needed] of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
It is alleged that neoconservative influence on American foreign policy became central with the Bush Doctrine.[citation needed]"
This is from wikipedia. Actually, the American Heratige Foundation is an education think tank having nothing to do with politics. I assume both of you are talking about the Heritage Foundation which is clearly neo-con.
BTW Sharajat's post on this is one of the best I've read on these forums
from what i have seen obama isn't even in power and he has already screwed up
this is why the courts need to look into this obama isn't even from the u.s. and needs to go
Okay, we're going to talk about American politics now, which is something I know you don't have much experience with, but stick with me here and we'll get through it.
The key trait of the neoconservative movement is that they are an aggressive outgrowth of the the failed 'change the world' communists and traditional conservatives. They favor a strong, interventionist foreign policy that actively seeks to protect Americas interests abroad through aggressive action, including the use of military force. This ideology clearly derives from the concept of 'controlling the world' that was so popular in the communistic school of thought, but found root in the traditional conservative movement, harking back to the Teddy Roosevelt school of international diplomacy. It found root with the evangelical Christians, and ended up tacking on a bunch of various conservative concepts. The result was a weird outgrowth of the crusader mentality, combined with a disturbingly violent foreign policy.
It found its culmination in the administration of George W. Bush, who strongly follows the precepts of the neoconservative movement.
For further information, please see the writings of the American Heritage Foundation and the Project for the New American Century, both neoconservative think tanks who are largely discredited now, but were much more influential in the 90s.
The American Heritage Foundation is neo-con??? they are a bastion of traditional conservative thinking, there is nothing "neo" about them.
"Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives[citation needed] of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
It is alleged that neoconservative influence on American foreign policy became central with the Bush Doctrine.[citation needed]"
This is from wikipedia. Actually, the American Heratige Foundation is an education think tank having nothing to do with politics. I assume both of you are talking about the Heritage Foundation which is clearly neo-con.
BTW Sharajat's post on this is one of the best I've read on these forums
The Heritage Foundation is clearly conservative, unless Ronald Reagan was a neo-con.
now I am beginning to see the fuzzy definitions which underlie the fuzzy logic around here.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Okay, we're going to talk about American politics now, which is something I know you don't have much experience with, but stick with me here and we'll get through it.
The key trait of the neoconservative movement is that they are an aggressive outgrowth of the the failed 'change the world' communists and traditional conservatives. They favor a strong, interventionist foreign policy that actively seeks to protect Americas interests abroad through aggressive action, including the use of military force. This ideology clearly derives from the concept of 'controlling the world' that was so popular in the communistic school of thought, but found root in the traditional conservative movement, harking back to the Teddy Roosevelt school of international diplomacy. It found root with the evangelical Christians, and ended up tacking on a bunch of various conservative concepts. The result was a weird outgrowth of the crusader mentality, combined with a disturbingly violent foreign policy.
It found its culmination in the administration of George W. Bush, who strongly follows the precepts of the neoconservative movement.
For further information, please see the writings of the American Heritage Foundation and the Project for the New American Century, both neoconservative think tanks who are largely discredited now, but were much more influential in the 90s.
The American Heritage Foundation is neo-con??? they are a bastion of traditional conservative thinking, there is nothing "neo" about them.
"Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives[citation needed] of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
It is alleged that neoconservative influence on American foreign policy became central with the Bush Doctrine.[citation needed]"
This is from wikipedia. Actually, the American Heratige Foundation is an education think tank having nothing to do with politics. I assume both of you are talking about the Heritage Foundation which is clearly neo-con.
BTW Sharajat's post on this is one of the best I've read on these forums
The Heritage Foundation is clearly conservative, unless Ronald Reagan was a neo-con.
now I am beginning to see the fuzzy definitions which underlie the fuzzy logic around here.
Agreed..HF a neo-con pfft..Neo-con is someone that was left and then went right.
Clinton went so far left that he lost the house to the right...the only thing that stopped his far left swing was the Rep was in control of the house period,or he would have went way far left.The sub-prime loans was a self full filling prophecy,Create a crises and step in to fix it.Oil crises create a problem and step in to fix the problem,the government is so huge that its starting to feed on it self.
Obama plan to fix infrastructure isn't going to bring us out of these problems,nor will help right now,It will take yrs to get these contracts out and up and running.
And yes I'm happy with his picks...Pelosi,Reed will make demands that will nix Obama's plans.Soon he shall see that pool of rich folks is getting smaller and their is less of them to tax.But hey ! he will have a blank check to spend even more than any Republican every wished for.
Let the people get what they asked for.He is free with no constraints to spend at will.
Iran now has enough atomic fuel and bomb making know-how for nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them.Its just a matter of time before the rest of the world will change our world.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Okay, we're going to talk about American politics now, which is something I know you don't have much experience with, but stick with me here and we'll get through it.
The key trait of the neoconservative movement is that they are an aggressive outgrowth of the the failed 'change the world' communists and traditional conservatives. They favor a strong, interventionist foreign policy that actively seeks to protect Americas interests abroad through aggressive action, including the use of military force. This ideology clearly derives from the concept of 'controlling the world' that was so popular in the communistic school of thought, but found root in the traditional conservative movement, harking back to the Teddy Roosevelt school of international diplomacy. It found root with the evangelical Christians, and ended up tacking on a bunch of various conservative concepts. The result was a weird outgrowth of the crusader mentality, combined with a disturbingly violent foreign policy.
It found its culmination in the administration of George W. Bush, who strongly follows the precepts of the neoconservative movement.
For further information, please see the writings of the American Heritage Foundation and the Project for the New American Century, both neoconservative think tanks who are largely discredited now, but were much more influential in the 90s.
The American Heritage Foundation is neo-con??? they are a bastion of traditional conservative thinking, there is nothing "neo" about them.
"Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives[citation needed] of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
It is alleged that neoconservative influence on American foreign policy became central with the Bush Doctrine.[citation needed]"
This is from wikipedia. Actually, the American Heratige Foundation is an education think tank having nothing to do with politics. I assume both of you are talking about the Heritage Foundation which is clearly neo-con.
BTW Sharajat's post on this is one of the best I've read on these forums
The Heritage Foundation is clearly conservative, unless Ronald Reagan was a neo-con.
now I am beginning to see the fuzzy definitions which underlie the fuzzy logic around here.
LOL....Sorry I forgot Wikipedia is part of a vast liberal conspiracy and not a worthy source of information for intelligent people trying to make and informed decision.
The word Neocon is just another attempt by libs to make conservatism a dirty word. Nothing more. It's like saying someone isn't green because they wear leather loafers. pathetic.
Actually, it's not. The phrase was coined by Michael Harrington in 1973, and originally meant liberals who swung to the right in the face of certain liberal social changes, but was later adopted by Bill Kristol himself to describe the unilateral, interventionist foreign policy that many in the neoconservative movement espouse.
The social and religious conservativism that many associate with neoconservatives actually has nothing to do with the neoconservative movement. Social and religious conservatives are just the folks the neoconservative-controlled Republican party pandered to so they could get elected.
Thankfully, neoconservativism is pretty much dead at this point, thanks to our colossal fuckup in Iraq.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.