Lucky...

I wonder if Obama will stick up for this guy. What is your favorite brand of maccaroni and cheese? I dunno, I bet Obama likes the one whose factories hire the most black people.

i would start with overseas bases. there are a hell of a lot of them and i'm sure we could find several that are not necessary. Yep, guard our borders, coasts, ports; leave the imperialism for others. We're already skating dangerously close to posse comitatus with the troops at airports - I don't think that one would fly. You can guard airports w/o having 18 yo kids holding AR's at the gate, as it was right after 911. You can have security behind teh scenes monitoring via cameras, TSA screening, etc.

i would start with overseas bases. there are a hell of a lot of them and i'm sure we could find several that are not necessary. Yep, guard our borders, coasts, ports; leave the imperialism for others.

PR, he has been on the media a lot, he can call a conference any time he wants and the media trips on their dick to cover it, he doesn't need any PR ops.

No way, Canadians were wanting to come down here to buy stuff when we dropped 10 cents below them. And as the other poster stated, we ahve fucked a kot of other systems, esp with teh bank failures, I think they may not play with us for a while.

GWHB and Clinton did it? They pulled it off and it was a good thing. I'm sure bases like my old base, KI Sawyer in the UP of Michigan will hurt Gwinn, Michigan and Marquette, but the need isn't there. I love RC, I was there in 88 for Rockwell on the B-1. So we keep spanking the debt to provide a military that is unneeded? And you call welfare to the poor, sucking the nipple? You've just defended corporate/gov welfare via the military. Nah, when have we ever bailed out a miliary contractor? Maybe Colt can go back to selling to the public, you recall they quit at GHWB's request. There will be many remaining suppliers for the military. Make a goal of cutting it at least 25% per Barney Franks. Probably a good idea to work slowly so there isn't a big reverberation. Just layout a map of priority based upon venue and type of the base's mission. Then draw a line and cut all below that. Come back in 4 years and do it again. Just look back at the years 1989 to 2001 and see how the debt was flattened out by 12 years of cutting back.

No prob, glad you addressed them. OK, is this a diplomatic crisis? Are they going to boycott us? I think the Queen love Obama and family. Again, is there substantive anything here or desperation to find fault in nothing? How about this: ‘In January 1992, while at a formal dinner in Japan, then president George Bush became ill, vomiting on the Prime Minister of Japan, http://www.moonbuggy.org/archive/2007/03/19/george-bush-sr-throws-up-on-japanese-prime-minister/ I guess Japan has since written us off. Find something that matters, it makes a person look desperate to argue rhetoric. Oh God, is the start of an argument that Obama is a terrorist. The proposition of a conspiracy theory is the responsibility of the person proposing it. As well, see #1. A asked for details. I realize you didn't originate the list, but you posted it, make your case, as in; what happened? We should mend a lot of relationships, esp that of Venezuela. Again, you've posted nothing again. Make a case, Obama allegedly kissed Chavez on the cheek, it must be a custom, so how can you chide him for following custom when you chide him for breaking custom above. You are just desperate to find something and the authors of your list are just that. First, you're demonizing Socialism, or even quasi-Socialism, that is just your opinion, don't act as if there is no other way than exclusionist American Capitalism. As for a moment in Capitalism, we are the biggest debtor nation in the history of the world, so we are in that moment as a result of the biggest purveyors of your brand of Capitalism: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Still say it's the best system? Oh, and so ya feel real good about exclusionist American Capitalism, the top 20% of the country hold 93% of all cash and 84% of all cash and asset. Sounds to me like.....Communism in the aspect of distribution of wealth, but I'm just using data so what do I know? At a 55% approval rating I don't see Obama too worried about being impeached; that's deluded. Again, this wasn't your list, but make your argument as to why Obama should not have sided with Chavez and Castro, if he did at all. Establish the argument instead of the same drivel that I get the feeling you don't understand. Or providing a diplomatic solution. How have militant solutions worked out? Korea, VN, all the ME stuff for the major wars, and a bunch of micro-wars, haven't you learned these little countries like to pull us into these actions so we kill their innocents as well as their thugs and waste money and put them on the map? ME radicals live for dying in Jihad, why be a bunch of idiots and get sucked into the mess? So tell me, you still have provided no solution, tell me, what do we do when NK and Iran want a Nuclear program? Do we boycott, threaten, blow them up? Tell me. And this last war(s), how are they going? > $1 Trillion later and >4k deaths, how's it going? What have we done other than make a region dependent upon us, requiring us to stay longer? I realize your party thinks war first, but mine thinks war last. Bush's first mini-bailout was that puny: http://bailout.propublica.org/main/timeline/index Oct 3, 2008 – The House Passes TARP The House passes the bill, and the president signs the $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act into law. Oct 8, 2008 – Second AIG Bailout The government restructures its bailout of AIG. The insurer gets access to $37.8 billion more in loans. Oct 14, 2008 – Paulson Rolls Out Bank Investments The Treasury Department announces that it will invest up to $250 billion in the nation's banks via the Capital Purchase Program, a subcomponent of the TARP, and billed as investments in "healthy banks." Paulson announced nine major banks signed on for a total of $125 billion in investments. (More about the program here.) Oct 28, 2008 Cumulative Total: $115B$115B – 8 bailouts today Show/Hide Details Bank of America $15 billion Bank of New York Mellon $3 billion Citigroup $25 billion Goldman Sachs $10 billion JPMorgan Chase $25 billion Morgan Stanley $10 billion State Street $2 billion Wells Fargo $25 billion Nov 10, 2008 – Third AIG Bailout The government restructures its bailout of AIG for the second time. Treasury invests $40 billion in AIG as part of the government’s now-$150 billion effort to keep AIG from collapsing. I'LL SPARE YOU ALL THE GORY DETAILS, BUT HERE IS THE CUMMULATIVE TOTAL: Jan 16, 2009 Cumulative Total: $317.4B $28B – 42 bailouts today So are these the tiny details to which you refer, not to mention signing for the whole $700B? http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ289.110 Bush signed for teh whole thing under this: http://publicmarkup.org/bill/senate-emergency-economic-stabilization-act-2008/ Do you have a real understanding of what you're talking about? So Hoover's response to the Great Depression was good when he cut taxes immediately, thousands starved to death, so he raised taxes his last year, as did FDR and we pulled out amazingly. Also, Hoover and FDR created a lot of roads projects and the Hoover Dam on taxpayer's dime, was this takeover too? You just have given no recommendation as to what the gov should do and what the foreseeable consequence would be, so your point falls meaningless. No, I don't, you ever tell an off-color joke or hear one and laugh? Hell, Bonceproof clothing is kinda morbid, but do we laugh? Blue skies/black death is kinda off-color. Love your selective hypersensitivity. He wants to bring MC to everyone, that's the most gracious thing a person in his position can do. Increasing social spending to help everyone including special Olympians is gracious; cutting funding and saying 'please 'thank you' is superficial. No, can't you admit your blunders? Your assertion was that Obama doubled the debt. Most of what has been disseminated was Bush's $700B bailout and the automaker's bailout. Obama has increased the debt very little and it's all gone to recession recovery. If the HC passes it will at 850B over 10 years, and much of that will probably be recovered in the way of cost savings by cleaning up overall HC costs. Show some character here and admit the authors of your cut-n-pasty have no idea of what they are talking about. Doubled isn't a real hard concept. Do you see how people pick-up idiotic information? This is how rumors start. It is. We need to tone it down and give others fewer reasons to attack us. Again, you have no idea what the author of this cut-n-pasty meant, you can't address it so you make a false assumption as to my military service. I spent my 18th Bday in basic. Next errant ad hominem. I asked you to post what you were talking about and you couldn't. Post a list of the names and situations. I asked you to expound on your assertion. I see now that you do get your info from SC, Limbaugh and Hannity. Make your point; you have just posted someone else's words and you can't back em. Hiro Hito had surrendered conditionally before the bombings. Intentionally bombing women and children can't be excused by necessity in my world. You claimed Obama outlawed the use of the word, "terrorism' let me see what you're talking about; post a reference. I dunno, it's YOUR ASSERTION - YOU BACK IT UP! He was prosecuted; I watched part of the trial. The case was tossed due to technical language issues with ATF statute. Where did I say the pres of Mexico anything? I think you should step down a bit and watch, you don't really have an understanding of the issues you post. What's Acorn? Describe with citation what you're talking about with politicizing the census, etc. Your guess and mine, you apparently agree that it would have been parental interference if we detained Elian. You then agree that this point by your author is BS. Again, the original point: So freeing the ship captain justifies torture how??????? He apologized that day or the next, there was no pressure, and he was pissed immediately. Again how is that his fault? Show how he resisted and who pressured, unless you just pulled that from your ass. Establish terrorist friends. Why does it hurt that Israel is an ally? I want the world to love us. If Obama wants to appeal to the terrorist countries and groups, why did OBL publish a video of hate for him? Again, the point you ignored, Bush told Israel to quit stirring shit too. Again, post details. I know you don't understand what the author was trying to say, so either quit posting other people's words or understand them before you do. Total avoidance of the issues. Perhaps you should quit the cut-n-pasties. No, no, no; your assertion, you explain it. I think you learned your lesson; people will call you out if you post things for which you know not what you're talking about. Ohhhh, so that's where you get your info, the Tea Parties. I feel so foolish, how did I not know. Here's a vid to show how well-informed those great fellers are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y&feature=player_embedded Go to the 4 minute mark if you don't want to watch the whole thing, the Joe Wilson protestor is hilarious. As for Americans for or against, here's a Gallup poll http://www.gallup.com/poll/122822/americans-sharply-divided-healthcare-reform.aspx It's close to 50/50. I wonder what the polls would have read for outlawing slavery in the 1860's? I bet virtually all would have opposed it.

Today isn't last November. Rasmussen has his numbers at 50 disapprove / 49 approve today. I think you have an annoying desire to convince everyone of your self-proclaimed intellectual superiority. And the PEW has him at 55+ 33- http://people-press.org/report/545/obama-approval-steady As for my alleged (by you) intellect. Just curious how you get that. I like data, that doesn't make me an egghead, it just means I like an empirical approach, as data doesn't lie. People will interpret data to create lies, but that's why you get a lot of objective data that hopefully singles out an independent variable. So to you if I love Jesus I'm humble, if I love the empirical approach I'm a self-anointed genius? Ridiculous, quit the ad hominem and provide me that data that shows tax cuts leading to + economic times.

You have to be shitting me Mr. fossg! You believe that the militarys' responce on 9-11 was acceptable performance? Blues, Cliff Let's seperate the military members from the command structure and find the blame if any.

Firstly, quit the bravado. I was military and I honor the military, not always military leaders at various levels. And even if I wasn't former military I would still have the right to an opinion. Again, Bush fucked that up by himself, I have ZERO doubt that had he called in the Guard, Reserve or active duty that they would have saved many lives. I have no doubt that military guys do what they're told to extreme measures for little pay and often thankless aftermaths. I recall in basic I had to piss, dress and be in formation in 4 minutes down a large set of stairs as well. I wish I had that discipline now.

Fixed it.

Our military isn't going to do much good if they decide they want to destroy the dollar. Uh, they haven't destroyed the dollar, Reagan and GWB pretty much did that by themselves. If fact, the only reason China doesn't pull out of lending us miney is that that would destroy our dollar and our products would then compete with theirs. So they're in a tougher spot than us.

Not that it's the military's fault and not taht I'm trying to tangent, but how about Katrina's response?

Sure, I'll trade places, I love old movies. Let's see, you say this thread is trolling, you are a proud (not sarcasm), sworn military member SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION and you don't find it within the spirit of our country to make peaceful criticisms?

It is if this is considered censorship.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending Itemized: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending Pie chart: http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/us-taxes-2009.png So 44% of budget goes to military past and present. I imiagine some of that is debt interest and some military pensions, which some are justified, esp WWII debt. But this is ridiculous. We supposedly cheered when Communism fell, will they cheer when we fall? Will China keep lending us billions when we just use it for the military so we can have an upper hand on them? There is no good outcome if we don't cut that number in half.

And last November he won 52% of the popular vote over 45%. I think you don't like data and don't really have an understanding of things. Bush didn't get 45% last November.

Well at least it's nice to have 1 open-minded person on here. Data and 100 years of history is overrated, I agree. Unless you become disabled, elderly, etc and need teh help, then it's, "HELP ME GOV." If you could give me a while to research that technical aspect appreciate it. Actually, that's where the rub lies, I call social spending important, you will deny it but military spending is justified, as the Russians are coming. If you were elderly or disabled you would think it's great. That's my dad, hardcore Repub until he got old, now he's a Howard Dean Liberal. There have been many cycles, we can't shove it all together. Actually, the debt was manageable until the early 80's, which is when tax cutting and runaway spending was the fashion. BTW, prosperity has flourished for the upper class, so to say prosperity hasn't flourished is wrong. Well, you were being constructive for a while. Social spending benefits different people and has a different impact than does military spending, so all spending isn't the same. I illustrated that but you've decided to have your mind wide shut. This is where you're wrong again. The rich have money for cars, houses, etc., letting them keep again more and more just creates big numbers in their bank accounts and stangnates the economy for us. Rich people don't want for things, they keep track of their wealth via numbers as if it's a game. And when we're done with the cute expressions we can talk the economy. However, now that you bring that up, you apparently advocate spending on education; I agree. Clinton was big for that. Considering I'm usually broke, they do. As for overthinking and oversimplifying the largest GDP in teh world, lets not be juvenile. Trying to compare me saving gas money, to the largest GDP in the world is so ridiculous it's laughable. It's a series of different agendas based upon different regimes. BTW, tell me of the programs you call waste.

Isn't being 'loved' by politicians kind of like being 'respected' by the other inmates? I think Obama is loved by the world, rather than just by political leaders of other countries. The Global Peace Index dropped us from 97 to 83 in 1 year, meaning we're less volent.

Who are you refering to? Why are they no-talent clowns? How are they less talented from previous admins? More gullible? Did you see the utube vid of the idiots at that Tea Party rally? Ar etehy really no representative of the conservative masses? I think they are. Again, who? Why are they Socialists/Communists? WHat defines a Socialist / Communist in your mind?

Why not do both at the same time, worked for GHWB and Clinton? There is no connect between the two, the legislative processes are argued at different times and laws enacted differently. And by a look at history, if there is acorrelation, it's inverse, meaning when a president cuts taxes he increases spending. When a president increases spending, he cuts taxes. You can say it again and again, you just haven't shown data to suggest that cutting taxes leads to prosperity. Of course it's hard to establishwhich is better; tax increases or spending cuts. Since political science is a bastard science anyway, we can't run experiments and make observations, we just make observations, we cannot fully extract the independent variable and test it in a vacuum. What we can conclude tho is that when taxes are raised and spending cut then we do enjoy a better economy. So how can we extract which is more important, if one is 100% over the othr - doubtful, or how to apportion the credit for tax increase or the spending cuts for the improved economy. I think it's ignorant to impose our personal opinions as fact that one is 100%, the other 0%, so how do we design a rational experiment or method of observation to establish which act is predominant? I guess we could make futher obsevations of previous presidents, which I think I will do. Of course other factors have to be REASONABLY considered. Perhaps visiting the Great Depression would be a good place to start, or perhaps subsequent eras. I think I have my work cut out for me. That's kinda moot; we'll take judicial notice of that one. Not sure of the year, but FDR was the biggest taxer of all presidents. Over 50k was taxed at 91% I understand. Of course that was the greatest economic recovery of all times as well and Hoover led the way in his last year realizing his early tax cuts led to the horror of teh GD and reversing them. And see I can get that anywhere, I want a data-based explanation or a theory. Your theory seems to be based upon trickle-down economics, which have been fully debunked by now, I hope you don't subscribe to supply-side economics, do you? Pounding your hand on the table rejecting tax increases 'just 'cause' isn't rational. I think we can find a way thru observation of the last 100 or so years and being objective. Also, spending isn't spending. IOW's, welfare to the poor is immediately spend on smaller items and creates a demand for those items, but where are they manufactured and what kinds of employment do they create? Corporate welafre takes longer to see teh impact, but they might be more prone to create better employment, however there might be a probablility for the funds to get hung up in higher paying jobs for fewer. The tax cuts of the early 80's and early 2000's led to immediate trouble and the spending didn't seem to have a great imapct on jobs. Even tho the tax poilicies of major cuts led to some good tax revenue in the 2000's, the debt was at an all-time high. So there are a lot of factors and data to consider, but at this point what we do know is that tax cuts paired with increased spending leads to disaster; we have not yet determined which is more relevant to taht disaster. We alos know that tax increases paired with spending cuts leads to economic bliss, but we still have yet to determine which is more relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_(U.S._political_term) The czar term derives from the title Tsar which was used to designate the Russian, Bulgarian or Serbian monarchs of pre-World War I Europe. One of the earliest known metaphorical usages of the term in the U.S. were to Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who was named commissioner of baseball, with broad powers to clean up the sport after it had been dirtied by the Black Sox scandal of 1919.[1] In 1926, a New York City chamber of commerce named what the New York Times termed a "czar" to clean up the milk delivery industry.[2] In the United States, the term czar has been used by the media to refer to appointed executive branch officials since at least the early 1940s.[3] In 1942, The Washington Post reported on the "executive orders creating new czars to control various aspects of our wartime economy."[4] Positions were created for a transportation czar, a manpower czar, and a production czar, all to solve difficult problems in coordinating the resources necessary to fight World War II.[5] Not only did the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt advocate their creation; in December 1944, Republicans in Congress advocated that a "food czar" position be created that would have almost unlimited control over food pricing and distribution.[6] Since then, a number of ad hoc temporary as well as permanent United States Executive Branch positions have been established that have been referred to in this manner. The trend began again in earnest when President Richard Nixon created two offices whose heads became known as "czars" in the popular press: drug czar in 1971,[7] and especially energy czar in December 1973[8] referring to William E. Simon's appointment as the head of the Federal Energy Administration.[9] Nixon told his cabinet that Simon would have "absolute authority" in his designated areas, and compared the intended result to Albert Speer's role as the person in unquestioned charge of armaments for the Third Reich.[10] Simon found both the informal title "czar" and the Speer comparison unsettling.[10] However, at the height of the Arab oil embargo, Simon gave the position a good name by successfully putting into place a mandatory fuel allocation program and calming public fears about shortages without resorting to explicit gasoline rationing.[11] Other examples of this usage include "drug czar" for the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, "terrorism czar" for a Presidential advisor on terrorism policy, "cybersecurity czar" for the highest-ranking Department of Homeland Security official on computer security and information security policy, and "war czar" to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The term "czar" has also been applied to officials who are not members of the Executive Branch, such as Elizabeth Warren, named to a Congressional commission to oversee the Troubled Asset Relief Program in 2009 and described as an "oversight czar",[12] and Senate-confirmed positions, such as the Director of National Intelligence, described as the "intelligence czar" in 2004.[13] ____________________________________________ So why all the anger of the use of the term? I don't recall all the furor over the term when Reagan appointed his drug czar, I guess liberals are less prone to hysteria. Just because its origin is Russian now we have to fear that? Look at all the French words and other words of foreign origin we use. Does soup dejure mean we're all going to be European socialists if we order the minestrone? How about carpe diem, what's going to happen if we seize the day? (I'm waiting for a conservative to suggest we will become Latino) Relax kiddies, just because Obama has appointed liaison's to his cabinet and uses a common term doesn't mean we're going to become Socialists or Communists; we'll still dole out our healthcare very carefully and not everyone, just relax.

Bullshit - where was the bow to the Queen, then? 12. A first strike weapon as understood by everyone. Defense = first strike? That seems consistent with the 'logic' in your arguments. Mike, your priorities are typical of conservatives, worry about other's customs, yet let the substantive things go; pure misdirection. If you jack up the debt, decimate the country, then worry about silly tradition as tho that's the important thing you feel correct. Speaking of misdirection....where is anything about the debt or the (gasp) 'decimation of the country' in my reply? Point them out for me, will you? Point being, your leaders can fuck teh entire country up and you care if he bows when appropriate. My leaders need to be substantively focused. Obama is FAAAAAAAAAAAAR less offensive than was GWB, in fact, most or all of the world likes him except OBL.....can you say that about your regime? Like HIM? Ya, like a comedian. They are (for the most part) laughing at him Obama had small shoes to fill, he's loved as compared to Bush,

It's not a lie to work in your direcction and hope for more later. Does he want single payer or at least an additional option? Sure. Amazing that people act as if it's an odd system considering we now have the odd system.

Explain how Canada does it and their dollar is beating ours. The big draw is the military and military pensions.