World Politics

[fatandfast]

Along with any media companies that he does not care for, just like Chavez???

I forgot when I wrote this you hate all things Chavez. sorry. I did think it's cool to watch bankers scurry like rats with bags of money to "safe" countries,before Chavez pitches them in the pokie. As far as media I would take Murdoch over Obama in less than a day. Our constitution says he can't be Pres or Ruppert would already be in the white house

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I forgot when I wrote this you hate all things Chavez. sorry. I did think it's cool to watch bankers scurry like rats with bags of money to "safe" countries,before Chavez pitches them in the pokie. As far as media I would take Murdoch over Obama in less than a day. Our constitution says he can't be Pres or Ruppert would already be in the white house

I have no problem with going after the banks - however, since I am not sure they actually broke any laws (given that they were encouraged to write the loans by FannyMae and FreddyMac) I think the best that we can do is not give them any bail out money. Madoff is another story, he should and will die in prison.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.... Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

~ Woodrow Wilson - In The New Freedom (1913)

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”

~ Thomas Jefferson

 

[BroDeal]

I have no problem with going after the banks - however, since I am not sure they actually broke any laws (given that they were encouraged to write the loans by FannyMae and FreddyMac)

Everyone, at every level, was making money by writing bad loans. The Benjamins were all the encouragement that was needed.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Everyone, at every level, was making money by writing bad loans. The Benjamins were all the encouragement that was needed.

It is pretty encouraging when the Federal Government guarantees there is little to no risk in approving loans to people that have no ability to make the payments beyond an entry level low rate, when it reaches a breaking point and the government steps in, regulates and wrings their collective hands only to insure no real loss to the people who wrote the loans in the first place.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Looks like the banks would like to be conservative in their lending now but the administration has a different viewpoint:

"The lending issue irks some in the industry. “The White House’s political people like [senior adviser David] Axelrod tell us to lend more,” said one banking official. “But the regulators are saying the exact opposite. They’re saying, ramp up your capital ratios, and if you see default risk on the horizon, cut back on lending.”


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30388.html

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Something I can agree with:

"A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms," Obama said. "To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history."




President Obama - 10 February 2009
Nobel Peace Prize Speech

 

[Bala Verde]

Back to that third party option:

Tea Party Tops GOP on Three-Way Generic Ballot

Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

[...]

For this survey, the respondents were asked to assume that the Tea Party movement organized as a new political party. In practical terms, it is unlikely that a true third-party option would perform as well as the polling data indicates. The rules of the election process—written by Republicans and Democrats--provide substantial advantages for the two established major parties. The more conventional route in the United States is for a potential third-party force to overtake one of the existing parties.

Ironically, tea originated in the far East/China.

 

[hektoren]

Something I can agree with:

"A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms," Obama said. "To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history."




President Obama - 10 February 2009
Nobel Peace Prize Speech

Couldn't agree more.
I'm quite surprised really, by all the "experts" who are, all of a sudden, knowledgable about the statutes for awarding the Nobel Peace prize, written by Alfred Nobel. They're clearly not, and therefore just plain wrong.
Obama has, in his short period in office, dropped the plans for the nuclear shield and opened up a line of dialogue with the Russians, calling for nuclear disarmament. He's realigned the US with the UN, made clear that the US will follow the Geneva convention, opened up a dialogue with the moslem world, shown a willingness to accept the Kyoto accord and so on. In short, he has made an appeal for cooperation and peaceful coexistence that is a most welcome change in the White house. For those who bought into the Bush/Blair rhetoric this change must hurt more than a bit, and I believe the reason for a lot of the uttered ridicule of this years' Nobel peace prize laureate can be found here.
Leaving Afghanistan and the region now would ensure Taliban/al Qaeda reentering the hot seat. What would that mean for Afghani women?
Get this, too: Obama has inherited all the wars the US are currently involved in; in ****stan, Afghanistan and Iraq. (Just like he inherited the US economy post-Bush.) If he were to extract all US troops today, he'd be desecrating the graves of the brave soldiers who gave their lives trying to make a difference for people they never got to know.
And for the cocky and oh, so independent Europeans that really believe that the USA, under any president, still is a nation in love with the concept of "might is right" - well, the EU couldn't even stop Milosevic themselves, on European soil! We had to rely on the Americans, yet again.
Hail to the chief! Obama is definitely a "good guy", and is recognized as such by the Nobel Peace prize committee. Don't get your knickers in a twist!

 

[hektoren]

Couldn't agree more.
I'm quite surprised really, by all the "experts" who are, all of a sudden, knowledgable about the statutes for awarding the Nobel Peace prize, written by Alfred Nobel. They're clearly not, and therefore just plain wrong.
Obama has, in his short period in office, dropped the plans for the nuclear shield and opened up a line of dialogue with the Russians, calling for nuclear disarmament. He's realigned the US with the UN, made clear that the US will follow the Geneva convention, opened up a dialogue with the moslem world, shown a willingness to accept the Kyoto accord and so on. In short, he has made an appeal for cooperation and peaceful coexistence that is a most welcome change in the White house. For those who bought into the Bush/Blair rhetoric this change must hurt more than a bit, and I believe the reason for a lot of the uttered ridicule of this years' Nobel peace prize laureate can be found here.
Leaving Afghanistan and the region now would ensure Taliban/al Qaeda reentering the hot seat. What would that mean for Afghani women?
Get this, too: Obama has inherited all the wars the US are currently involved in; in ****stan, Afghanistan and Iraq. (Just like he inherited the US economy post-Bush.) If he were to extract all US troops today, he'd be desecrating the graves of the brave soldiers who gave their lives trying to make a difference for people they never got to know.
And for the cocky and oh, so independent Europeans that really believe that the USA, under any president, still is a nation in love with the concept of "might is right" - well, the EU couldn't even stop Milosevic themselves, on European soil! We had to rely on the Americans, yet again.
Hail to the chief! Obama is definitely a "good guy", and is recognized as such by the Nobel Peace prize committee. Don't get your knickers in a twist!

Great fun that P A K I stan gets censored!!! Try writing ****stan, and it'll be converted to the more PC ****stan. Islamophobia creeping in?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Obama is definitely a "good guy", and is recognized as such by the Nobel Peace prize committee.

I would not go this far, but I do like the quotes stated from his acceptance speech.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Yes, let's hand out Nobel prizes to everyone who is a "good guy".

Most forum members would probably agree I'm a good guy. Can I have my Nobel now?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Yes, let's hand out Nobel prizes to everyone who is a "good guy".

Most forum members would probably agree I'm a good guy. Can I have my Nobel now?

I am not sure that President Obama qualifies as a good guy - he does not have a track record, so it is a little difficult to see why he was a selection, but someone did write a couple of decent quotes into his speech.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Yes, let's hand out Nobel prizes to everyone who is a "good guy".

Most forum members would probably agree I'm a good guy. Can I have my Nobel now?

Obama does not deserve the nobel Peace Prize. From what I can see, the Nobel peace Prize should be for someone who has gone beyond their call of duty of work and done something which has made a difference.

I have a question for American's on this forum, When Bush was in Government mant celebrities seemed to bag him and pick up on every mistake he made. Now that Obama is in Government, we never hear any bagging of him at all in the media by celebs. This isn't meant as a racist comment but is that because he is black?

 

[usedtobefast]

Obama does not deserve the nobel Peace Prize. From what I can see, the Nobel peace Prize should be for someone who has gone beyond their call of duty of work and done something which has made a difference.

I have a question for American's on this forum, When Bush was in Government mant celebrities seemed to bag him and pick up on every mistake he made. Now that Obama is in Government, we never hear any bagging of him at all in the media by celebs. This isn't meant as a racist comment but is that because he is black?

bush was an idiot. not so with obama.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Obama does not deserve the nobel Peace Prize. From what I can see, the Nobel peace Prize should be for someone who has gone beyond their call of duty of work and done something which has made a difference.

I have a question for American's on this forum, When Bush was in Government mant celebrities seemed to bag him and pick up on every mistake he made. Now that Obama is in Government, we never hear any bagging of him at all in the media by celebs. This isn't meant as a racist comment but is that because he is black?

Most (not all) celebrities are to the left of most Democrats, that being said, they were very vocal about their support for Obama. To state that he is equal with the former President would be to suggest that they were wrong in the first place. Besides, they are hoping to win on health care and cap and trade still.

 

[auscyclefan94]

bush was an idiot. not so with obama.

If Bush was such an idiot, why did your country vote him in twice?

 

[Hugh Januss]

If Bush was such an idiot, why did your country vote him in twice?

Well technically we really didn't.............

 

[Hugh Januss]

Obama does not deserve the nobel Peace Prize. From what I can see, the Nobel peace Prize should be for someone who has gone beyond their call of duty of work and done something which has made a difference.

That is all true, but don't blame Obama. Would it have been better if he would have said "thanks, but no".
I think it was given on spec.

 

[usedtobefast]

If Bush was such an idiot, why did your country vote him in twice?

bush was an idiot. your question is irrelevant. : )

 

[auscyclefan94]

bush was an idiot. your question is irrelevant.

So your country votes in idiots? Makes Sense!

 

[usedtobefast]

So your country votes in idiots? Makes Sense!

take a look at history. we were not the first. and don't forget the first election
was a fraud, hanging chad and all. yes he was "elected".
still=idiot=bush.
we are all still feeling the effects of his time,worldwide,eh?

 

[auscyclefan94]

take a look at history. we were not the first. and don't forget the first election
was a fraud, hanging chad and all. yes he was "elected".
still=idiot=bush.

I know this is a bit personal but did you ever vote for him when he was first going for president. If so,why?

 

[RightWingNutJob]

I know this is a bit personal but did you ever vote for him when he was first going for president. If so,why?

To answer your other question Auscy, yes we vote in idiots, in fact we just voted in another one.