Is Obama already planning his re-election ?
- Thread starter Francis2004
- Start date
Not quite, ironsides. I would like to get Chrétien (or rather, now Ignatieff) back. Chrétien did not make such an asinine deal and would never make one.
As to the bow, I still fail to see what the big deal is. It doesn’t hurt to be polite. It is quite a contrast from Bush’s cowboy, shoot from the hip rhetoric (‘bring it on’, or ‘if you are not for us, you are against us’).
No wonder perception of USA has undergone a sea change since Obama became the President.
"It is just being me (objective, dispassionate and brutally frank). The thread has generated 10 posts in two days. By my standards, that is a yawn."
SirJosephPorter, that post only drew a few posts, because it must have been deleted by the moderator for its title, which I am not going to repeat, but may have been construed as racist.
However, its replacement has generated a lively debate, in which you seem to be an eager and frequent participant.
The yawn is reserved to your posts due to their utter predictiblity, being an apologist for the Apologist-In-Chief, who thought it necessary to bad-mouth his country and his predecessor and apologize for the very existence of the United States in every country he set foot in on his tour.
He learned his lesson well from Carter and Clinton.
BTW, have you read any of the British publications pertaining to Obama. Are you aware that in Turkey a report about him was done with the anchor in "black-face"?
He probably earned that "new respect" by declaring to Saudi Arabia and the world, when he bowed to that despicable misogynist homophobe that America is inferior to Saudi Arabia.
SirJosephPorter, that post only drew a few posts, because it must have been deleted by the moderator for its title, which I am not going to repeat, but may have been construed as racist.
However, its replacement has generated a lively debate, in which you seem to be an eager and frequent participant.
The yawn is reserved to your posts due to their utter predictiblity, being an apologist for the Apologist-In-Chief, who thought it necessary to bad-mouth his country and his predecessor and apologize for the very existence of the United States in every country he set foot in on his tour.
He learned his lesson well from Carter and Clinton.
BTW, have you read any of the British publications pertaining to Obama. Are you aware that in Turkey a report about him was done with the anchor in "black-face"?
He probably earned that "new respect" by declaring to Saudi Arabia and the world, when he bowed to that despicable misogynist homophobe that America is inferior to Saudi Arabia.
"Not quite, ironsides. I would like to get Chrétien (or rather, now Ignatieff) back. Chrétien did not make such an asinine deal and would never make one."
Of course, not! He would just steal enough top built another golf course.
Why not!? He did it once..
Of course, not! He would just steal enough top built another golf course.
Why not!? He did it once..
"No wonder perception of USA has undergone a sea change since Obama became the President."
Obviously the Somali pirates realize the change. During the Bush years they NEVER dared to attack a ship under American flag, knowing the certain retaliation that would follow.
But now, that the American President considers himself and America below Muslim terrorist of the marine kind, what the Hell, America is not nor will it ever be in war with Islam.
The sure way to earn the respect of a bully is showing weakness.
Obviously the Somali pirates realize the change. During the Bush years they NEVER dared to attack a ship under American flag, knowing the certain retaliation that would follow.
But now, that the American President considers himself and America below Muslim terrorist of the marine kind, what the Hell, America is not nor will it ever be in war with Islam.
The sure way to earn the respect of a bully is showing weakness.
Apparently you hadn't witnessed the proliferation of Ontario-sponsored golf courses during the Harris regime....
The yawn is reserved to your posts due to their utter predictiblity,
That is your opinion, Yukon Jack; I don’t think my posts are yawns. They almost invariably generate a lively debate. That is not a yawn, in my definition.
who thought it necessary to bad-mouth his country and his predecessor and apologize for the very existence of the United States in every country he set foot in on his tour.
Again, that is only your opinion. My opinion is that he replaced Bush’s shoot from the hip, cowboy style belligerence, hostility, arrogance towards the rest of the world by reaching out, holding forth the hand of cooperation, partnership etc. (while at the same time expressing his determination of fighting the terrorists extremist to the bitter end).
That is why the feeling of intense dislike that was prevalent during Bush era is now replaced by one of friendship, cooperation and working together, on the part of rest of the world. During Bush era, it was go it alone on the part of USA.
Just recently Iran announced that it will join the nuclear talks. I didn’t think that would ever happen. It certainly would never have happened with Bush’s talk of the ‘Axis of Evil’.
That is your opinion, Yukon Jack; I don’t think my posts are yawns. They almost invariably generate a lively debate. That is not a yawn, in my definition.
who thought it necessary to bad-mouth his country and his predecessor and apologize for the very existence of the United States in every country he set foot in on his tour.
Again, that is only your opinion. My opinion is that he replaced Bush’s shoot from the hip, cowboy style belligerence, hostility, arrogance towards the rest of the world by reaching out, holding forth the hand of cooperation, partnership etc. (while at the same time expressing his determination of fighting the terrorists extremist to the bitter end).
That is why the feeling of intense dislike that was prevalent during Bush era is now replaced by one of friendship, cooperation and working together, on the part of rest of the world. During Bush era, it was go it alone on the part of USA.
Just recently Iran announced that it will join the nuclear talks. I didn’t think that would ever happen. It certainly would never have happened with Bush’s talk of the ‘Axis of Evil’.
Obviously the Somali pirates realize the change. During the Bush years they NEVER dared to attack a ship under American flag, knowing the certain retaliation that would follow.
Yukon Jack, the piracy problem is not directed at USA, the pirates take any ship they think they can. In fact, I think this is the first US ship they have taken.
Claiming that Obama caused the pirates to attack US ship would be as absurd as claiming that Bush provoked the 9/11 attack.
But now, that the American President considers himself and America below Muslim terrorist of the marine kind, what the Hell, America is not nor will it ever be in war with Islam.
And nor should it be. The enemy is not Islam (well, perhaps it is for religious right), but Muslim extremists. To Bush’s credit, Bush never explicitly declared war on Islam. However, his apparently anti-Muslim rhetoric (talking of Crusade, for instance) certainly didn’t help.
I think Obama is going about it in just the right way. USA should be at war with Muslim terrorists, not with all the Muslims and certainly not at war with Islam. Evidently what you are looking for is another Crusade (with your talk of war with Islam). If you are going to fight a war with Islam, count me out.
Yukon Jack, the piracy problem is not directed at USA, the pirates take any ship they think they can. In fact, I think this is the first US ship they have taken.
Claiming that Obama caused the pirates to attack US ship would be as absurd as claiming that Bush provoked the 9/11 attack.
But now, that the American President considers himself and America below Muslim terrorist of the marine kind, what the Hell, America is not nor will it ever be in war with Islam.
And nor should it be. The enemy is not Islam (well, perhaps it is for religious right), but Muslim extremists. To Bush’s credit, Bush never explicitly declared war on Islam. However, his apparently anti-Muslim rhetoric (talking of Crusade, for instance) certainly didn’t help.
I think Obama is going about it in just the right way. USA should be at war with Muslim terrorists, not with all the Muslims and certainly not at war with Islam. Evidently what you are looking for is another Crusade (with your talk of war with Islam). If you are going to fight a war with Islam, count me out.
I sure hope he's planning his re-election, what have eight years of a useless and destructive Republican Bush adminstration given us?
The world economy is on taxpayer funded life-support as the ultra-rich still expect all their perks.
Global tensions are almost back to Cold War levels as the North Koreans test nukes and missiles and the Russian bear is grumbling once again.
Not to mention the potential for violent overthrow of western friendly governments in Islamic countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. And who knows what's going to happen in a deeply fractured Iraq even if the US forces stay.
Obama is talking about peace and fiscal reform to bring about some order from the chaos, I guess if you prefer a world flying out of control then he's not going to be your man.
He's even talking about doing away with nukes and resuming open relations with Cuba. For those not deeply mired in the past he's a refreshing change. Too bad he can't run for more than two terms I say.:smile:
The world economy is on taxpayer funded life-support as the ultra-rich still expect all their perks.
Global tensions are almost back to Cold War levels as the North Koreans test nukes and missiles and the Russian bear is grumbling once again.
Not to mention the potential for violent overthrow of western friendly governments in Islamic countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan. And who knows what's going to happen in a deeply fractured Iraq even if the US forces stay.
Obama is talking about peace and fiscal reform to bring about some order from the chaos, I guess if you prefer a world flying out of control then he's not going to be your man.
He's even talking about doing away with nukes and resuming open relations with Cuba. For those not deeply mired in the past he's a refreshing change. Too bad he can't run for more than two terms I say.:smile:
Re #169.
SirJosephPorter, you miss my point, whether on purpose (as I suspect) or accidentally.
Let me use a historical parallel:
In 1978, during the Presidency of a pesudo-American detante-promoter appeaser, an over-in-his-head coward, (you know, JIMMY CARTER) the Islamic militants took 54 American hostages in Iran and held them for 444 days. The hostage-takers knew the spinal consistency (kind of similar to spaghetti) of the President, and in extention, the United States, and knew that they could get away with it.
But once there was a REAL American in the White House, a man with spine and character, the screaming cowards knew that their days would be numbered if they kept up their banditry. So, just one day after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, the Islamist Terrorists released all American hostages.
The only wrong thing Ronald Reagan ever did in his eight years of Presidency is not giving Iran a spanking of their miserable flee-ridden lives that they so richly deserved, which would have slowed down the spread of the cancer of Islam that resulted in 9/11.
Conversely, the Somali pirates knew they'd better not mess with ships sailing under Amarican flag while there is a man in the White House who is resolute and unforgiving of Islamic terrorist punks. So, during the eight years of Bush Presidency, they dared not attack an American vessel.
But then, to their great delight, (and, needless to say, to the great delight of Osama bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, Raul and Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, etc., etc) a wuss was elected by the addle-minded and misled Americans. A wuss, who declared that the U.S. WILL NOT get in a war with Islam. In other words, the U.S. SURRENDERS.
So, they had no fear, no incentive to be introspective. Sock it to the yanks whose President is proud to declare that he and his country are considered by him to be subservient to a misogynist, homophobic and xenophobic pedophlile displayed by his bowing to this Royal Fraud.
Perhaps, when Obama bowed, he kissed His Majesty's LEFT hand.
Nothing would be more fitting and proper.
SirJosephPorter, you miss my point, whether on purpose (as I suspect) or accidentally.
Let me use a historical parallel:
In 1978, during the Presidency of a pesudo-American detante-promoter appeaser, an over-in-his-head coward, (you know, JIMMY CARTER) the Islamic militants took 54 American hostages in Iran and held them for 444 days. The hostage-takers knew the spinal consistency (kind of similar to spaghetti) of the President, and in extention, the United States, and knew that they could get away with it.
But once there was a REAL American in the White House, a man with spine and character, the screaming cowards knew that their days would be numbered if they kept up their banditry. So, just one day after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, the Islamist Terrorists released all American hostages.
The only wrong thing Ronald Reagan ever did in his eight years of Presidency is not giving Iran a spanking of their miserable flee-ridden lives that they so richly deserved, which would have slowed down the spread of the cancer of Islam that resulted in 9/11.
Conversely, the Somali pirates knew they'd better not mess with ships sailing under Amarican flag while there is a man in the White House who is resolute and unforgiving of Islamic terrorist punks. So, during the eight years of Bush Presidency, they dared not attack an American vessel.
But then, to their great delight, (and, needless to say, to the great delight of Osama bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, Raul and Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, etc., etc) a wuss was elected by the addle-minded and misled Americans. A wuss, who declared that the U.S. WILL NOT get in a war with Islam. In other words, the U.S. SURRENDERS.
So, they had no fear, no incentive to be introspective. Sock it to the yanks whose President is proud to declare that he and his country are considered by him to be subservient to a misogynist, homophobic and xenophobic pedophlile displayed by his bowing to this Royal Fraud.
Perhaps, when Obama bowed, he kissed His Majesty's LEFT hand.
Nothing would be more fitting and proper.
Last edited:
"He's even talking about doing away with nukes and resuming open relations with Cuba. For those not deeply mired in the past he's a refreshing change. Too bad he can't run for more than two terms I say."
So, let other countries show the way how to do away with nukes. So far, in every instance, every time, the enemies of America wanted America to reduce nuclear capability first. How about letting them start? Like North Korea. Or Iran. Or Pakistan. Or Russia.
Don't bore me with Cuba. The only country in the entire world that does not have "normal" relations with Cuba is the United States. Some of my friends - in spite of their otherwise sterling qualities - go to Cuba for vacations because they are CHEAP or perhaps because they like the idea of slavery. So, to claim that the U.S. embargo (and the Castro Brothers refer to it as a 'blockade') hurts Cuba is total BUNK. It should not and could not hurt Cuba, unless its 'leaders' are hurting Cuba. Besides the only thing the U.S. would gain by doing business with Cuba is thousands of more cases of lung cancer due to stinking Cuban cigars.
Third term? Just finish the FIRST one, and good luck!
So, let other countries show the way how to do away with nukes. So far, in every instance, every time, the enemies of America wanted America to reduce nuclear capability first. How about letting them start? Like North Korea. Or Iran. Or Pakistan. Or Russia.
Don't bore me with Cuba. The only country in the entire world that does not have "normal" relations with Cuba is the United States. Some of my friends - in spite of their otherwise sterling qualities - go to Cuba for vacations because they are CHEAP or perhaps because they like the idea of slavery. So, to claim that the U.S. embargo (and the Castro Brothers refer to it as a 'blockade') hurts Cuba is total BUNK. It should not and could not hurt Cuba, unless its 'leaders' are hurting Cuba. Besides the only thing the U.S. would gain by doing business with Cuba is thousands of more cases of lung cancer due to stinking Cuban cigars.
Third term? Just finish the FIRST one, and good luck!
Conversely, the Somali pirates knew they'd better not mess with ships sailing under American flag while there is a man in the White House who is resolute and unforgiving of Islamic terrorist punks.
Yukon Jack, again, piracy is a recent problem, which started under Bush’s watch and has continued under Obama. To blame Obama for piracy is as absurd as blaming Bush for causing 9/11.
But indeed, one could make a similar argument. When Bush came to power, he immediately started saber rattling, shooting from the hip, started comparing Iran and other Islamic counties with Nazi Germany (remember ‘Axis of Evil?’). In doing so, he alienated the entire Muslim world. He made Osama Ben Laden so angry that he decided to carry out the 9/11 attack.
Now, this argument may be nonsense, but it is no more nonsense than your argument that Obama caused the piracy off the coast of Somalia. The reasons for the piracy are complex and go a long way back. Only a rabid Obama hater would claim that Obama caused piracy.
Yukon Jack, again, piracy is a recent problem, which started under Bush’s watch and has continued under Obama. To blame Obama for piracy is as absurd as blaming Bush for causing 9/11.
But indeed, one could make a similar argument. When Bush came to power, he immediately started saber rattling, shooting from the hip, started comparing Iran and other Islamic counties with Nazi Germany (remember ‘Axis of Evil?’). In doing so, he alienated the entire Muslim world. He made Osama Ben Laden so angry that he decided to carry out the 9/11 attack.
Now, this argument may be nonsense, but it is no more nonsense than your argument that Obama caused the piracy off the coast of Somalia. The reasons for the piracy are complex and go a long way back. Only a rabid Obama hater would claim that Obama caused piracy.
The US created the nuclear weapons issue in the first place and still remains the premier nuclear power, NO ONE is going to seriously talk about nuclear disarmament if the US doesn't initiate the discussion. Regan half-heartedly tried it in Iceland with Gorbachov and Bush Sr. talked about it after the Soviets went tits up, so it's not like there's no precedence for it in America. Truman also talked about trying to cork the nuclear genie, it's not an easy problem to resolve.
Who's posts are you reading, all I said was he was talking about normalizing relations with Cuba. And having an economy the size of the US closed to a country the size of Cuba is inevitably going to have a serious economic effect now that you bring it up. Better relations with Cuba will mean an opportunity to undue some of the damage done to both countries by the tensions of the last 50 or so years.
And the "mired in the past" comment wasn't directed at you personally but after reading your post I'm dedicating it to you.:smile:
He's even talking about doing away with nukes and resuming open relations with Cuba. For those not deeply mired in the past he's a refreshing change.
Cobalt_kid, I think the older generation of Cubans are losing their stranglehold on American politics.
Cubans in Miami are a loyal Republican constituency, same as religious right. They wanted nothing but total war with Castro. They didn’t get that, so they settled for a blockade.
However, the second generation of Cubans are not as ideologically fixated as the older generation. They don’t instinctively vote Republican, and they would like some dealings with Cuba. That is one of the reasons why Obama carried Florida; Republicans have won Florida in most of the recent elections.
With the Republican influence waning Washington (at least for the present); there may be chance for a real breakthrough in American relations with Cuba.
Cobalt_kid, I think the older generation of Cubans are losing their stranglehold on American politics.
Cubans in Miami are a loyal Republican constituency, same as religious right. They wanted nothing but total war with Castro. They didn’t get that, so they settled for a blockade.
However, the second generation of Cubans are not as ideologically fixated as the older generation. They don’t instinctively vote Republican, and they would like some dealings with Cuba. That is one of the reasons why Obama carried Florida; Republicans have won Florida in most of the recent elections.
With the Republican influence waning Washington (at least for the present); there may be chance for a real breakthrough in American relations with Cuba.
He isn't blaming Obama for piracy. Anybody with more than a grade six education could get that from his post.[/quote]
Piracy would seem to be something of which our friend actually HAS expertise. Note the number of threads hijacked and dedicated to an overblown ego....
Last edited:
"Now, this argument may be nonsense, but it is no more nonsense than your argument that Obama caused the piracy off the coast of Somalia. The reasons for the piracy are complex and go a long way back. Only a rabid Obama hater would claim that Obama caused piracy."
I never said that Obama caused the Somali piracy. All I said was that the appearent (and, regretfully very real) weakness of Obama emboldened the Somali pirates to do something they never hitherto dared to do: attack a vessel flying American flag.
I gave my reasons. You gave your excuses.
I never said that Obama caused the Somali piracy. All I said was that the appearent (and, regretfully very real) weakness of Obama emboldened the Somali pirates to do something they never hitherto dared to do: attack a vessel flying American flag.
I gave my reasons. You gave your excuses.
Cobalt_Kid, as one who spent his growing years under the same kind of regime as you (and Michael Moore) seem to admire, believe me, there is nothing redeeming about Castro's Cuba until it will be Cuba without Castro of any sort, or description. About the same as you would not want to move into a house that you know has been infested by cockroaches, until all the roaches are permanrently removed. THAT is what I would call normalization. In addition to restoring all the properties to their rightful owners - those that were nationalized, i.e. stolen by the communist brigands.
I feel honoured that you dedicated your "mired in the past" remark to me. Being a conservative, I know that a complinment from a liberal is hard to come by. I know you did not mean it, but thanks, anyways.
I feel honoured that you dedicated your "mired in the past" remark to me. Being a conservative, I know that a complinment from a liberal is hard to come by. I know you did not mean it, but thanks, anyways.