• on a comment on Obama the neo-con over 3 years ago

    I only said the temperament angle was my own view, I am well aware of what was said during the campaign. For what it's worth I don't think Hillary is any stupider than Obama. But she is certainly more Hawkish than he is. That's temperament, not smarts.

    As for the caution angle - Bush was definitely gung-ho about war - whether in A'stan or Iraq. Long term planning or exit strategies were not actively considered - things were simply expected to fall into place. Everything seemed to happen on a "seat of the pants" basis and numerous accounts have told of the utter confusion and chaos within the admin that followed the invasion of Iraq, something they had supposedly "planned" for. 

    We have not seen that kind of activity with Obama. By all accounts this administration takes time reviewing options and formulating decisions, even if those are decisions we may not agree with.

  • They may be losing support but it's not evident in Congress. 41 GOP senators and 197 congressmen - 100% of the caucus voted against repeal. So whoever GOProud and LCR are leaning on, it's not their own party.

  • on a comment on Obama the neo-con over 3 years ago

    What "support" did Bush in 2002 need that Clinton did not have in 1998? Hillary knew her vote in '02 was a vote for war, she said it herself at the time, during her speech in favor of it.

    To pretend that she was merely misled by Bush and din't believe he would actually invade without "firm proof", is attempting to pull wool over our eyes. IIRC there was an amendment brought up during the vote that would have made the invasion dependent on another vote from congress following the inspectors report. Clinton voted against that one..

  • Lesson 1 from the GOP - never criticize the same team, even if your on opposing sides. 

  • on a comment on Obama the neo-con over 3 years ago

    I think the difference is not so much "superior judgement" as temperament. Obama is (and was) expected to be far more cautious than Clinton, and both would have been more cautious than Bush. When it comes to foreign affairs and invading/bombing other countries that's about as much as we can hope for. That the C-in-C proceeds as cautiously and carefully as can be hoped for.

    I believe Obama has so far kept that promise. 

  • on a comment on Obama the neo-con over 3 years ago

    She defends her vote, but not the war.

     

    See, that's the confusing bit, that's not clear at all. Essentially your point is she voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, but was not actually being in favour of invasion - just for more inspections. I mean that's an argument I would buy if I considered Hillary to be a) really that stupid, b) had heard her teeth-gashing when Bush decided to invade while the inspectors were still doing their thing. 

    Unfortunately neither a) nor b) are true.

  • on a comment on What’s Up With Germany? over 3 years ago

    I think the lesson we can glean from the 2008-2009 economic crash is that states in which the government was well vested in the economy (Germany, China, France, Scandinavia) tended to weather the downturn relatively well, whereas states which took a more "hands-off" approach (US, UK, Ireland, Baltics) did much worse.

    To that we can add exporting countries did a lot better than importing ones. Essentially this can be explained that once the recovery/stabilization began exporting countries were better poised to take advantage of it than countries based on consumption. 

  • "It took them six years, but they accomplished more DADT results in six years than the Obama Administration accomplished in the last two."

    I'm not surprised, they had 3x the time. Lol.

    I mean really, hearings in this case began in early 2010. What was going on in this case from 04 to 09? Was the GOP even pushing the issue? 

  • Well, they won sort of by default because the DoJ didn't contest the case - no witnesses, no testimony, no defense other than "this is for congress". So this victory is the result both of a tiny few gay republicans and a democratic DoJ.

    Because you know for sure it wouldn't have worked out that way during 2004-2008 (tarheels point).

  • on a comment on Obama the neo-con over 3 years ago

    Hillary's "explanation" to her base on her Iraq war vote was confusing enough, so i'm not sure what clarity you got out of it. Maybe you could explain it?

  • on a comment on Obama the neo-con over 3 years ago

    Laws of War. The US is in a state of war with AQ and allies (declared shortly after 9/11). That gives the legal authoritah for military action, regardless of their citizenship (see american citizens fighting for Germany during ww2).

    Ofcourse who is a member of AQ or allied group is sort of open to interpretation.

  • on a comment on [updated] "F-ing retards" over 3 years ago

    I have an idea, how about congress reduce the charitable deduction limit for high-income earners to what it is for everyone else?

    Oh right, Congress punted on that one too.

    As I said, I haven't heard any other alternatives for raising the money - which is strange since it's congresses job.

  • on a comment on [updated] "F-ing retards" over 3 years ago

    A bit is also hyperbole. Taking 2.2 billion out of Food Stamps over ten years is hardly going to effect a program that costs around 60 billion over the same period. And the money is also going to be spent on food in the end.

    Ofcourse if there are better options for raising the money, then i'm all for it. But I havn't heard the alternatives.

  • on a comment on [updated] "F-ing retards" over 3 years ago

    Both of you are arguing against each other. One is arguing that Obama is too close to special interests and big government, the other is saying he essentially isn't close enough.

    Yet you act as if you agree with each other! It's hilarious!

  • on a comment on [updated] "F-ing retards" over 3 years ago

    Lol, you just tried to equate Barack Obama to Sharron Angle and O'Donnell. Just how far off the reservation are you? A comparison to Palin would have been more apt.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads