World Politics

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
There are many people who should be in prison over this financial crisis. Angelo Mozilo (Countrywide), Chris Cox (SEC Chair), Henry Paulson (Treasury), Hank Greenberg and Marty Sullivan (AIG), Chris Dodd and Barney Frank for starters. You could also include the A-Holes at JP Morgan/Chase as they basically torpedoed Washington Mutual which took out Wachovia... I mean this list is long and there are greasy corporate types and greasy politicians in the mix. Corrupt to the f'ing bone.
+1.... I might not have agreed with your point of view much in this thread, but I do agree with this.

With all the screaming about socialism, it seems ironic that the most capitalistic institution in this country, the financial sector, is the biggest benefactor of government spending. We seem to have "Socialied Capitalism" - Capitalism when Wall St is making a profit, socialism when it isn't. It's crazy!
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
RDV4ROUBAIX said:
I went to Carnival 2000. It's tons of fun, but it smells like a$$ crack everywhere you walk. Hence the pic you posted. Easy on the eyes, but not the nose.;)
I'd still put my nose in that!
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
fatandfast said:
All people from AU and the UK should ask "what the **** is wrong with those crazy Americans?". The thing I find the funniest about the Obama/health care tread is 2 fold. First most people around the world assume we have good/cheap/free health care. 2nd Obama is the 5th or 6th Pres to bring this up I think we started this thread in @1907, by Teddie Roosevelt a Republican! and we still can't get it right. Now we are so distracted by the messenger that we can't hear the message. Abe Lincoln was a Republican!
A Republican today aint what it once was!
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Riley Martin said:
I guess the IOC said no to Hope and Change. They are a bunch of racist for not going with Obama on this.

keep it cool
This was an error by Obama that will most certainly knock some of his political luster off a bit. A South American country with any promise for being able to build this (where's the money coming from!?), is a no-brainer over any competitor.
 
Cobber said:
+1.... I might not have agreed with your point of view much in this thread, but I do agree with this.

With all the screaming about socialism, it seems ironic that the most capitalistic institution in this country, the financial sector, is the biggest benefactor of government spending. We seem to have "Socialied Capitalism" - Capitalism when Wall St is making a profit, socialism when it isn't. It's crazy!
That's what I meant by derugulated capitalism when it's profitable, the socialization of private debt when it isn't.

Capitalism, per se, isn't the problem, rather the finacial market without rules is. The politicians in Washington have persued a hands-off policy in the affairs of the so-called Wall Street gurus since Reganism, and even placed chief investment financial bank officers (that is those who stood to make the most profit from a stock market without rules) as the ones in charge of regulating it. Also because those same investment banking firms and their leadership, poured huge campaign funds into the politicians' pockets vis-a-vie their corporate lobbiests.

Such a incestuous relationship between Washington's body politic and the Master's of the Universe at Wall Street, largely explains the perverse form of capitalism we have, one which is causing the financial world to tremor at the moment.

The other problem, I would say, is socio-cultural and psychological: Americans, with a desocialized (or to put it in the charged format, privitized) society of higher education and healthcare and since the invention of private creditcard dept and since Reganism, have displayed a maniac's pention for material consumption, which, along with other depts like student loans and, naturally, having to pay a costly medical insurance, places them under extremely high risk of insolvency when such overhead costs and debt are based on phantom wealth and not actual earnings.

And that's what the essence of this form of deregulated finacial capitalism accompanied by a culture of high accumulated private depts has produced: that is the perception of a phantom wealth (because we should always consume more, want a bigger home - and that this should, of course, just always be somehow magically possible, because evidently it is the "American Way") that is in no way based upon real earnings and thus real wealth.

For the same socio-cultural reasoning the economic crisis, while certainly hitting hard at the the multi-national corporate world in Europe as well, did not strike directly at the lives of individual European consumers with such brute force. Because they simply live much more within their means, don't generally have overburdening credit depts, nor high tuition costs to pay back, nor costly medical insurance to buy, etc., and the European banks did not subscribe to that same lethal type of "creative financing" which led to the rampant accumulation of portfolios of so called "toxic bonds", that weren't worth a cent because they could never be payed back by those who were lent far too much money for that new "castle" than their real salaries should never have ever permitted them to have.

This is what is meant by "healthy downsizing" and "responsible spending." Yet since Reganism, Americans have been tought with the deregulated capitalist regime put in effect and guiding thier lives and their choices, that they should want and indeed have whatever they desire. And that is cultural, before being economic. Well it is a culture which needs to change. And it is also a fine justification to have some socialized programs integrated within the capitalist culture, as in Europe, which must be regulated to a degree by government. There must also be new rules with corporate campaign financing to break the perverse incestuous relationship between the politicians and wall street mentioned above.

However, judging by what has taken place since the last bubble burst at the stock market and Obama's constant backstepping on healthcare reform, etc., evidently the nation is simply not mature enough to change its ways. That and the fact that there are just too many conservatives in government to push the serious reforms through, just as there are far to many American citizens who have no clue that they are living completely different mode than the citizens of the rest of the world.

So I won't hold my breath.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
1
0
Ah wonderful news from the corporate-politico world:

NYT

The reprimand, by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, stemmed from an investigation it conducted after many polls showed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton trailing in the run-up to the 2008 Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire, where she went on to win. The association requested minimal information from 21 polling companies that, according to its professional guidelines, all polls should disclose, including sample size, response rate and polling dates.

Strategic Vision was the only company that did not provide the information, prompting a complaint filed with the association.
Some contend they even fabricated their stats :rolleyes:

Increasing importance of polls > profits to be made > entering competition > competitive edge required to continue to make profits > cheating...

And then those self-gratifying politicians keep on reading poll numbers to tweak the message the population supposedly wants to hear. Wonderful democracy!
 
Jul 28, 2009
333
0
0
Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8298580.stm

ROFL :D

Awarded for, as one forum member put it, "dropping bombs on brown people". He was wide of the mark though because the Peace Prize voting nominations stop on the 1st of Feb. Oba had only been emperor for 11 days by then.

At least he has a chance of keeping that psychotic wench at bay. The world-wide bodybount would be mahoosive with her on the throne.
 
Apr 12, 2009
1,087
1
0
cromagnon said:
Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8298580.stm

ROFL :D

Awarded for, as one forum member put it, "dropping bombs on brown people". He was wide of the mark though because the Peace Prize voting nominations stop on the 1st of Feb. Oba had only been emperor for 11 days by then.

At least he has a chance of keeping that psychotic wench at bay. The world-wide bodybount would be mahoosive with her on the throne.
Utterly ridiculous how can you give somebody a nobel prize for efforts in peace, when he's sending more troops into afghanistan. Frankly I think he's an overrated president who hasn't really done anything yet. I mean seriously has anything gotten better. The Nobel Prize once distinguished have thrust itself into being just another committee of fanboys.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
franciep10 said:
Utterly ridiculous how can you give somebody a nobel prize for efforts in peace, when he's sending more troops into afghanistan. Frankly I think he's an overrated president who hasn't really done anything yet. I mean seriously has anything gotten better. The Nobel Prize once distinguished have thrust itself into being just another committee of fanboys.
I still consider myself a suporter of the president, but can't argue with that.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
I still consider myself a suporter of the president, but can't argue with that.
+1..... I was really shocked that he won the Peace prize. It seems more like a criticism of Bush than anything else. "Here's a nobel peace prize because you are NOT a "war president""!

If anything, I think this award will complicate things for him. It will certainly galvanize "the right". I can only imaging what crap Rush Limbaugh will be spewing today.....
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
1
0
As if he hadn't enough on his plate already, now they have brought the PEACE prize to his desk, right before he's making a decision about to sending troops to Afghanistan.

Talking about upping the ante... I can only imagine how thrilled he'll be about this prize :rolleyes:

Perhaps there was a scarcity of potential award winners in this category, although they could have awarded it to an institution...
 
franciep10 said:
Utterly ridiculous how can you give somebody a nobel prize for efforts in peace, when he's sending more troops into afghanistan. Frankly I think he's an overrated president who hasn't really done anything yet. I mean seriously has anything gotten better. The Nobel Prize once distinguished have thrust itself into being just another committee of fanboys.
He's not sending more troops into Afghanistan. And I think it is way to early to decide if he is overrated. Heck, a number of my fellow Americans haven't accepted that he is legitimately president, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Frankly, any complaints should be lodged with the Noble Nominating Committee and not the recipient. It's not like he nominated and awarded himself the Peace Prize.
 
Aug 3, 2009
176
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
There are many people who should be in prison over this financial crisis. Angelo Mozilo (Countrywide), Chris Cox (SEC Chair), Henry Paulson (Treasury), Hank Greenberg and Marty Sullivan (AIG), Chris Dodd and Barney Frank for starters. You could also include the A-Holes at JP Morgan/Chase as they basically torpedoed Washington Mutual which took out Wachovia... I mean this list is long and there are greasy corporate types and greasy politicians in the mix. Corrupt to the f'ing bone.
+1 Not one of them will do a second of time in prison for their misdeeds.I mean after all,they literally bankrupted the planet!Our monetary system as we know it will go by the wayside.Buy your gold now before it spirals to 2000 an oz. .The American dollar will no longer be the worlds reserve currency.Our system of finance is excellent,too many foxes in the henhouse ruined it.I offer this.Go into any bank in the USA.Reach over the counter and take a 20 dollar bill out of the drawer,stand outside and wait to be arrested.I guarantee you will do 7 to 20 years.With enormous wealth and power comes the unique option of no accountability for any crime.Its nothing new.The usual,"do as I say,not as I do mentality".I believe their term is,"an error in judgement".We will suffer the same fate as Germany did years ago.Government spending will cause hyperinflation.Go back to the basics.Learn to hunt,fish and farm.Eventually you will have no choice.By the way,Obama deserves the Nobel peace prize as much as Corey Haim deserves an Oscar for any Movie.
 
Apr 12, 2009
1,087
1
0
Publicus said:
He's not sending more troops into Afghanistan. And I think it is way to early to decide if he is overrated. Heck, a number of my fellow Americans haven't accepted that he is legitimately president, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Frankly, any complaints should be lodged with the Noble Nominating Committee and not the recipient. It's not like he nominated and awarded himself the Peace Prize.
He has sent more troops into afghanistan, and he's planning to send more. People are calling him a great president when he hasn't done anything to make things better, I'm not saying he's a failure I think he can do good things but nothing has gotten better and they're calling him the best president since JFK are you kidding me let him prove himself first.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Two things strike me with this award.

1. Evidence of corruption is very easy to identify.

2. Liberal elites are monumentally more impressed with intentions rather than results.
 
franciep10 said:
He has sent more troops into afghanistan, and he's planning to send more. People are calling him a great president when he hasn't done anything to make things better, I'm not saying he's a failure I think he can do good things but nothing has gotten better and they're calling him the best president since JFK are you kidding me let him prove himself first.
Can you provide me the link where he says that he is sending MORE troops into Afghanistan? I know about the initial increase in troops, but I hadn't heard that a decision had been made on the commanding general's recommendation for more troops. I figured that would be pretty big news.

As for your complaint about people calling him a great president, that's not his fault, any more than it is his fault that others are calling him Hitler. He can't control what others say, only what he says and does. So far, he's been pretty modest in his approach and has not, to my knowledge, rested on his laurels. He's frankly working his **** off to get things done in the face of seem pretty incredible challenges, not to mention a wall of anti-intellectualism, open hostility and racism. In short, I think you are being a bit harsh on the man . . . under the circumstances. But that's just my humble opinion.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Publicus said:
Can you provide me the link where he says that he is sending MORE troops into Afghanistan? I know about the initial increase in troops, but I hadn't heard that a decision had been made on the commanding general's recommendation for more troops. I figured that would be pretty big news.

As for your complaint about people calling him a great president, that's not his fault, any more than it is his fault that others are calling him Hitler. He can't control what others say, only what he says and does. So far, he's been pretty modest in his approach and has not, to my knowledge, rested on his laurels. He's frankly working his **** off to get things done in the face of seem pretty incredible challenges, not to mention a wall of anti-intellectualism, open hostility and racism. In short, I think you are being a bit harsh on the man . . . under the circumstances. But that's just my humble opinion.
Modest approach? That's not how I would describe it considering he's spent more money than the total of all of the Presidents that came before him combined and wants to punish achievement more than any other President in at least the last 70 years.

I agree he's working hard. I'm worried of the direction, but no doubt, he has a work ethic.

Is that the same racism that got him elected by a comfortable margin?
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
I hope he uses the 1.4 million dollars that you get with the peace trophy to go out and play golf maybe on the links in Scotland. He has 2 wars going and a very busy social life. Health care and closing torture chambers have taken a back seat to other more important things like a quick trip with Oprah to see if Chicago got a fair shake. The kids that are getting beaten to death on the streets of Chicago don't need his help or money. Maybe a pool or velodrome will quell the murders. He has the ability to send troops wherever so maybe 20000 to Afganistan and the other 20000 to Wrigley Field to stop the war in his home state.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Modest approach? That's not how I would describe it considering he's spent more money than the total of all of the Presidents that came before him combined and wants to punish achievement more than any other President in at least the last 70 years.

I agree he's working hard. I'm worried of the direction, but no doubt, he has a work ethic.

Is that the same racism that got him elected by a comfortable margin?
He didn't create the current economic situation, but the stimulus package is what was (in most non-partisan economists minds) absolutely necessary to avoid a depression. He struck a balance in the package he offered to accommodate Republicans (larger portion of tax breaks even though doesn't have the same stimulative impact as aid to state governments). I would certainly appreciate it if the Republicans were even remotely interested in participating in the governing of this country and fixing the problems they had a hand in creating, but they seem content to act like spoiled children.

As for the racism, do we really need to argue about the tone and tenor that is on display at the Tea Bagger events? The vitrol and hatred on display there is not about fiscal conservatism since it was conveniently absent when President Bush was in office and driving the country to its current fiscal state. And I'm not going to go into the questions of his legitimacy to be president.

I'm not chalking all of the opposition up to racism, or even a majority of it. But I've lived in this country all of my 38 years (born in the deep South, lived in all parts of the country) and at bottom, in my opinion, the root of the anger is his non-whiteness. Racism is a part of the American fabric.
 
fatandfast said:
I hope he uses the 1.4 million dollars that you get with the peace trophy to go out and play golf maybe on the links in Scotland. He has 2 wars going and a very busy social life. Health care and closing torture chambers have taken a back seat to other more important things like a quick trip with Oprah to see if Chicago got a fair shake. The kids that are getting beaten to death on the streets of Chicago don't need his help or money. Maybe a pool or velodrome will quell the murders. He has the ability to send troops wherever so maybe 20000 to Afganistan and the other 20000 to Wrigley Field to stop the war in his home state.
Yep. Obama has just been chilling. Not really doing anything. Slacker.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
Obama came on the scene with lots of grand plans.He said "shovel ready" a million times and still has done nothing but put my tax finger in 20 dikes about to burst. Bailed out banks and when he tried to regulate them and change what he saw was wrong they quickly repaid the Gov cash and gave themselves huge salary and bonuses. He said the back bone of the US would provide jobs putting high tech everything in schools, he said the crumbling bridges and roads would put people to work asap. He didn't close any prisons,didn't end any wars didn't stop the Patriot act from bugging peoples phones and internet activity.Has spent 100's of millions on security and people in the subways and airports are getting on and off major transportation with dangerous objects. The health care issue was he single biggest mistake and he can't figure a way out of the corner he put himself in. If he would have tied it to a civil right free care for everybody regardless he could have had a chance. As soon as they started with immigrant this and who qualifies he was sunk. This happens throughout life you elect a cheerleader instead of the nerd and regret it as soon as **** hits the fan. @ give a guy with 2 wars going a peace prize just shows it not only the US with our head up are ***, it's global.1 thing he did accomplish tripling the budget def in 8 months.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Publicus said:
He didn't create the current economic situation, but the stimulus package is what was (in most non-partisan economists minds) absolutely necessary to avoid a depression. He struck a balance in the package he offered to accommodate Republicans (larger portion of tax breaks even though doesn't have the same stimulative impact as aid to state governments). I would certainly appreciate it if the Republicans were even remotely interested in participating in the governing of this country and fixing the problems they had a hand in creating, but they seem content to act like spoiled children.

As for the racism, do we really need to argue about the tone and tenor that is on display at the Tea Bagger events? The vitrol and hatred on display there is not about fiscal conservatism since it was conveniently absent when President Bush was in office and driving the country to its current fiscal state. And I'm not going to go into the questions of his legitimacy to be president.

I'm not chalking all of the opposition up to racism, or even a majority of it. But I've lived in this country all of my 38 years (born in the deep South, lived in all parts of the country) and at bottom, in my opinion, the root of the anger is his non-whiteness. Racism is a part of the American fabric.
He is as culpable as any other sitting US Senator was for the current situation. To act like he knew nothing and was powerless is ridiculous. Very little of the stimulus monies have been spent and are not slated to be until nearer re-election time. Coincidence? No. This country's unemployment is almost 10%, and that does not count the people that are off the benefit roles and have given up looking for a job. The real number is closer to 17%. This is now Obama's economy. He's been in charge since January. If the stimulus package was designed to save the economy the why are the Feds being directed (from this administration) not to spend the money?

If your definition of governing equals take-over then I hope Republicans grow a spine and block everything he wants to do. It was not that long ago that the Dems blocked everything the Republicans tried to do including a philibuster of a Supreme Court nominee which had never before happened. There is not much bi-partisanship and has not been since pretty early in the Reagan Admin.

Healthcare, Cap and Trade, Govt Motors... really? I would argue the point that our President is not only refusing to govern but he in fact has never stopped campaigning.

Questioning the former President's legitimacy is about as honest as the 'birthers' arguing Obama does not qualify to be President because he was not born here. Hogwash.

But your side has told us that Obama is the first 'post-racial' president. So now I'm confused.
 
fatandfast said:
Obama came on the scene with lots of grand plans.He said "shovel ready" a million times and still has done nothing but put my tax finger in 20 dikes about to burst. Bailed out banks and when he tried to regulate them and change what he saw was wrong they quickly repaid the Gov cash and gave themselves huge salary and bonuses. He said the back bone of the US would provide jobs putting high tech everything in schools, he said the crumbling bridges and roads would put people to work asap. He didn't close any prisons,didn't end any wars didn't stop the Patriot act from bugging peoples phones and internet activity.Has spent 100's of millions on security and people in the subways and airports are getting on and off major transportation with dangerous objects. The health care issue was he single biggest mistake and he can't figure a way out of the corner he put himself in. If he would have tied it to a civil right free care for everybody regardless he could have had a chance. As soon as they started with immigrant this and who qualifies he was sunk. This happens throughout life you elect a cheerleader instead of the nerd and regret it as soon as **** hits the fan. @ give a guy with 2 wars going a peace prize just shows it not only the US with our head up are ***, it's global.1 thing he did accomplish tripling the budget def in 8 months.
I'll take these in order:

1. My guess is your taxes haven't gone up at all. Not one bit.
2. President Bush authorized the TARP program/bank bailout. Bank regulation legislation is pending in Congress (President's don't make law, just sign them and enforce them).
3. Stimulus money is flowing to varying parts of the country and is responsible for minimizing the last quarter GDP losses and they expect will result in small growth in the next quarter. The Republicans are fighting the climate change bill tooth and nail--which is slowing the roll out of green jobs and the growth of the green industry. But the stimulus money is having its desired effect. He never said it would create jobs immediately, he did suggest that it would stem the loss of jobs (especially in state and local governments which have to balance their budgets).
4. He's closed Guantanmo, but the nut bags in Congress (of both parties) don't want to have the prisoners transferred to maximum security prisons in their states (even though terrorists are already imprisoned there).
5. He hasn't ended any wars or stopped the government from tapping phones without warrants, etc., under the Patriot Act, but then neither has Congress (and that's THEIR job).
6. Healthcare wasn't a mistake. 47MM Americans without coverage; healthcare costs growing much faster than inflation or wages; biggest contributor to deficit. Something has to be done and, IMHO, what he is proposing is a relatively elegant solution.
7. He didn't triple the budget deficit in eight months. He inherited a $1.3T budget deficit.
 
Scott SoCal said:
He is as culpable as any other sitting US Senator was for the current situation. To act like he knew nothing and was powerless is ridiculous. Very little of the stimulus monies have been spent and are not slated to be until nearer re-election time. Coincidence? No. This country's unemployment is almost 10%, and that does not count the people that are off the benefit roles and have given up looking for a job. The real number is closer to 17%. This is now Obama's economy. He's been in charge since January. If the stimulus package was designed to save the economy the why are the Feds being directed (from this administration) not to spend the money?

If your definition of governing equals take-over then I hope Republicans grow a spine and block everything he wants to do. It was not that long ago that the Dems blocked everything the Republicans tried to do including a philibuster of a Supreme Court nominee which had never before happened. There is not much bi-partisanship and has not been since pretty early in the Reagan Admin.

Healthcare, Cap and Trade, Govt Motors... really? I would argue the point that our President is not only refusing to govern but he in fact has never stopped campaigning.

Questioning the former President's legitimacy is about as honest as the 'birthers' arguing Obama does not qualify to be President because he was not born here. Hogwash.

But your side has told us that Obama is the first 'post-racial' president. So now I'm confused.
I wasn't acting like anything. I said he wasn't responsible for the current economic situation. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. I was explaining why he has had to spend so much money (or seek authorization to spend so much money). Nothing more. As for the timing of the funds, the tax breaks are already flowing through your paychecks (reduction in payroll taxes), but you are right the bulk of the stimulus money hasn't come out. I'd go through the reasons why, but given your hostility on the subject it seems it would be an exercise in futility.

First I've heard of the Administration directing the Fed not to spend stimulus dollars. The stimulus dollars were awarded to states in the form of direct aid, extended unemployment benefits, payroll tax breaks, and infrastructure projects (the bulk of which aren't in place). Where would the Federal Reserve fit into that equation? The Fed oversees Banks, not the general economy.

My concept of governing isn't about take overs, nor is it President Obama's. It's not like GM and Chrysler were fine until January 20, 2009, and then subsequently tanked thereafter. Billions had been pumped into those two entities by President Bush. We were, as a nation, already going down with those ships. At least we can participate in any upside going forward. When life gives you lemons, you have to make lemonade.

I agree with you that bi-partisanship has been dead for a while, but I would peg it's death at Clinton (Reagan was fairly well received and loved by the nation, I know I was a big fan even if I was way too young to vote)--specifically with the rise of Newt Gingrich. That being said, I'm not sure if that is something to be celebrated. It's a tragedy in my book.

As for President Bush, the only question about his legitimacy had to do with a vote count in Florida and the Supreme Court's rather odd ruling on the matter (they declared it had no precedential value, which is virtually unheard of). Once he was president, he was president. And after 9/11, he had the entire nation behind him. He worked pretty hard at screwing that up. But he did it.

My side didn't tell you anything about Obama being a post-racial anything. Media pundits would like it to be that way, but no one on "my side" suggested that was anything more than a fantasy. But I'd be curious, what is my side?
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
cromagnon said:
Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8298580.stm

ROFL :D

the Peace Prize voting nominations stop on the 1st of Feb. Oba had only been emperor for 11 days by then. .
Well, if nominations ended Feb. 1st they'd have 9 months to ponder the candidates before final decision, wouldn't they?

Give them a break! Obama is an about face- a turn away from the "we alone"-stance of Dubya. The prize must be seen as a hearty welcome to a US that finally decides it is a part of this world after all. A US that doesn't project itself as an entirely separate entity in a parallell reality, a 4th dimension. A US that's finally forming their policy on a basis of rational thinking rather than full-blown paranoia and divine inspiration from pastors more likely than not having a part of their anatomy up an altarboy's bum. A US that puts dialogue over confrontation. A US that now see more shades of grey than pure black and white. For the gung-ho extreme (might-is-) right in Fox News and several conservative thinktanks who actually believe the Jews have a devine right to do whatever they deem appropriate this is a wakeup-call.
Obama has signalled that he's willing to work with the UN, shown a willingness to approach the Kyoto accord and thus kissing the american double standards goodbye, shown that he's dedicated to promote nuclear disarmament.
What's there not to like?

Like it or not, the US president is a person that'll have a great impact on the rest of the world. Obama has shown that he truly wants to make a difference. The Nobel-committee says: Let him!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS