The Obama Administration thread

[sandman]

Sandman, actually, I don't watch Hannity.  I have a ten minute commute to and from work.  Options for talk radio are nil in central Delaware.  I prefer Michael Medved over Hannity, but the reception isn't always there.  Next question of course will be, "Why don't you buy satellite?"  My answer?  I'm too cheap...call me fiscally conservative. 

Now, what happened to all the claims before the election that Obama was going to be the most liberal politician in the history of the United States?  I guess all the "radical" talk was a bit off the mark, eh?

you mean Obama's claims? 

[D]

I am actually quite worried about this N Korea situation.


wonder how Bush would be handling this?

[Brody]

I am actually quite worried about this N Korea situation.


wonder how Bush would be handling this?

Why would you be? Obama already has Hilldog on her way with a BBall Signed by MJ himself!

this peace of shit makes me miss bush.

[Axl4Prez2004]

I am actually quite worried about this N Korea situation.


wonder how Bush would be handling this?

Why would you be? Obama already has Hilldog on her way with a BBall Signed by MJ himself!

this peace of shit makes me miss bush.

^ Nice post!   

D, what are you worried about?  If N. Korea attacked the U.S., there'd be a very large parking lot north of South Korea formerly known as North Korea.

Brody's right.  How the fuck could Obama have taken his eye of the ball and let N Korea get nukes?  Oh yeah, oops, that was the administration that preceded him.

btw, one nice thing about Brody's post was the unintentional irony of spelling piece of shit, peace of shit.  Funny stuff. 

[D]

China doesn't want us to physically retaliate though right?

So if the Chinese are against us attacking N Korea. I don't know what we can do.

[Brody]

I am actually quite worried about this N Korea situation.


wonder how Bush would be handling this?

Why would you be? Obama already has Hilldog on her way with a BBall Signed by MJ himself!

this peace of shit makes me miss bush.

its the telli txt on my phone ass.

^ Nice post!   

D, what are you worried about?  If N. Korea attacked the U.S., there'd be a very large parking lot north of South Korea formerly known as North Korea.

Brody's right.  How the fuck could Obama have taken his eye of the ball and let N Korea get nukes?  Oh yeah, oops, that was the administration that preceded him.

btw, one nice thing about Brody's post was the unintentional irony of spelling piece of shit, peace of shit.  Funny stuff. 

its the telli txt on my phone ass.

[Brody]

I am actually quite worried about this N Korea situation.


wonder how Bush would be handling this?

Why would you be? Obama already has Hilldog on her way with a BBall Signed by MJ himself!

this peace of shit makes me miss bush.

^ Nice post!   

D, what are you worried about?  If N. Korea attacked the U.S., there'd be a very large parking lot north of South Korea formerly known as North Korea.

Brody's right.  How the fuck could Obama have taken his eye of the ball and let N Korea get nukes?  Oh yeah, oops, that was the administration that preceded him.

btw, one nice thing about Brody's post was the unintentional irony of spelling piece of shit, peace of shit.  Funny stuff. 

We'll did i say he took his eye off the ball? Nope.. didnt think so.. Obamas plan of talking insane dictators from creating and testing nuclear technology along with delivery methods for them as well sure seems to be going well. I mean he would rather talk with Irans current regime then support the people of Iran who clearly want more liberties.

China doesn't want us to physically retaliate though right?

So if the Chinese are against us attacking N Korea. I don't know what we can do.

All the Chinese are worried about is the refugees fleeing NK.

[freedom78]

I am actually quite worried about this N Korea situation.


wonder how Bush would be handling this?

Why would you be? Obama already has Hilldog on her way with a BBall Signed by MJ himself!

this peace of shit makes me miss bush.

^ Nice post!   

D, what are you worried about?  If N. Korea attacked the U.S., there'd be a very large parking lot north of South Korea formerly known as North Korea.

Brody's right.  How the fuck could Obama have taken his eye of the ball and let N Korea get nukes?  Oh yeah, oops, that was the administration that preceded him.

btw, one nice thing about Brody's post was the unintentional irony of spelling piece of shit, peace of shit.  Funny stuff. 

We'll did i say he took his eye off the ball? Nope.. didnt think so.. Obamas plan of talking insane dictators from creating and testing nuclear technology along with delivery methods for them as well sure seems to be going well. I mean he would rather talk with Irans current regime then support the people of Iran who clearly want more liberties.

Did you base this on him not talking to the regime and condemning their violent actions against the people?

Is it opposite day or somethin?

[Smoking Guns]

Iran blasting Obama, says he is like Bush.  Now Obama is mad....This is getting good...  These people are irrational, maybe now we know why Bush did some of the things he did.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090625/wl_nm/us_iran_election

[freedom78]

Iran blasting Obama, says he is like Bush.  Now Obama is mad....This is getting good...  These people are irrational

They're not irrational at all.  In fact, this is extremely rational, in a domestic sense.  We have no relations so, other than violence, we have no punishment to offer, and we aren't going to war because Iran isn't democratic (a good sign that this is NOT like Bush).  So, given the lack of an effective punishment, Iran risks little by calling us out.  What they gain, however, is much more useful.  Iranian opposition to us has long been a part of their claim to legitimacy and a way to delegitimize any domestic opposition as "tools of the US".  Further, knowing that Bush is widely hated in the Muslim world, if Ahmedinejad can correlate Obama with Bush, and America with the protests, then he delegitimizes the protests.

So, I disagree that this is irrational.  It may be a complete fabrication, but it serves a very specific purpose, much as Iranian opposition to the US has served a purpose since the revolution. 

maybe now we know why Bush did some of the things he did.

I'm not sure what Bush did, RE: Iran, save saber rattling.  Mostly it was maintenance of a status quo, exacerbated by an Iranian President willing to go very far in his own rhetoric.  If anything, Obama's stance of willingness to engage Iran undermines the claim that we "hate Muslims" or are "a tool of the Jews/Israel" or any of that nonsense.  And, if it doesn't work, there's always that status quo, which has been largely non-violent for 30 years.

Anyway, we still should mostly butt out.  Condemn government violence against the people, but nothing beyond that (barring very extreme circumstances).  Should Iran have another revolution, it will be well served if it does not come about because of us but, rather, in spite of our absence.  Having a system of government imposed does little to strengthen the people's faith in that system (see: Iraq), and any revolution must start and end with Iranians and NOT because we sympathize with their cause or, even worse, because we can frame it as in our interests.  While we may share the aspirations of any people seeking a freer society, such truths will matter a good deal more if they arrive at them without our cajoling.     

[Smoking Guns]

Iran blasting Obama, says he is like Bush.  Now Obama is mad....This is getting good...  These people are irrational

They're not irrational at all.  In fact, this is extremely rational, in a domestic sense.  We have no relations so, other than violence, we have no punishment to offer, and we aren't going to war because Iran isn't democratic (a good sign that this is NOT like Bush).  So, given the lack of an effective punishment, Iran risks little by calling us out.  What they gain, however, is much more useful.  Iranian opposition to us has long been a part of their claim to legitimacy and a way to delegitimize any domestic opposition as "tools of the US".  Further, knowing that Bush is widely hated in the Muslim world, if Ahmedinejad can correlate Obama with Bush, and America with the protests, then he delegitimizes the protests.

So, I disagree that this is irrational.  It may be a complete fabrication, but it serves a very specific purpose, much as Iranian opposition to the US has served a purpose since the revolution. 

maybe now we know why Bush did some of the things he did.

I'm not sure what Bush did, RE: Iran, save saber rattling.  Mostly it was maintenance of a status quo, exacerbated by an Iranian President willing to go very far in his own rhetoric.  If anything, Obama's stance of willingness to engage Iran undermines the claim that we "hate Muslims" or are "a tool of the Jews/Israel" or any of that nonsense.  And, if it doesn't work, there's always that status quo, which has been largely non-violent for 30 years.

Anyway, we still should mostly butt out.  Condemn government violence against the people, but nothing beyond that (barring very extreme circumstances).  Should Iran have another revolution, it will be well served if it does not come about because of us but, rather, in spite of our absence.  Having a system of government imposed does little to strengthen the people's faith in that system (see: Iraq), and any revolution must start and end with Iranians and NOT because we sympathize with their cause or, even worse, because we can frame it as in our interests.  While we may share the aspirations of any people seeking a freer society, such truths will matter a good deal more if they arrive at them without our cajoling.     

We should butt out. However, do rational people kill protestors that don't agree with them and fix elections?  They are sane.  They are intelligent, but making extreme not well thought out decisions like, "lets kill those that protest us" doesn't sound like a strong well thought out regime.  It sounds desperate to hold onto what they once had and don't let this protest gain steam because we (Iran's current leadership) are a sinking ship.  Change is in the air, I expect them to act more and more desperate to hold on to the power they have.  A rational country like ours allows protests with only people wanting to inflict harm being thrown around. 

[freedom78]

Iran blasting Obama, says he is like Bush.  Now Obama is mad....This is getting good...  These people are irrational

They're not irrational at all.  In fact, this is extremely rational, in a domestic sense.  We have no relations so, other than violence, we have no punishment to offer, and we aren't going to war because Iran isn't democratic (a good sign that this is NOT like Bush).  So, given the lack of an effective punishment, Iran risks little by calling us out.  What they gain, however, is much more useful.  Iranian opposition to us has long been a part of their claim to legitimacy and a way to delegitimize any domestic opposition as "tools of the US".  Further, knowing that Bush is widely hated in the Muslim world, if Ahmedinejad can correlate Obama with Bush, and America with the protests, then he delegitimizes the protests.

So, I disagree that this is irrational.  It may be a complete fabrication, but it serves a very specific purpose, much as Iranian opposition to the US has served a purpose since the revolution. 

maybe now we know why Bush did some of the things he did.

I'm not sure what Bush did, RE: Iran, save saber rattling.  Mostly it was maintenance of a status quo, exacerbated by an Iranian President willing to go very far in his own rhetoric.  If anything, Obama's stance of willingness to engage Iran undermines the claim that we "hate Muslims" or are "a tool of the Jews/Israel" or any of that nonsense.  And, if it doesn't work, there's always that status quo, which has been largely non-violent for 30 years.

Anyway, we still should mostly butt out.  Condemn government violence against the people, but nothing beyond that (barring very extreme circumstances).  Should Iran have another revolution, it will be well served if it does not come about because of us but, rather, in spite of our absence.  Having a system of government imposed does little to strengthen the people's faith in that system (see: Iraq), and any revolution must start and end with Iranians and NOT because we sympathize with their cause or, even worse, because we can frame it as in our interests.  While we may share the aspirations of any people seeking a freer society, such truths will matter a good deal more if they arrive at them without our cajoling.     

We should butt out. However, do rational people kill protestors that don't agree with them and fix elections?  They are sane.  They are intelligent, but making extreme not well thought out decisions like, "lets kill those that protest us" doesn't sound like a strong well thought out regime.  It sounds desperate to hold onto what they once had and don't let this protest gain steam because we (Iran's current leadership) are a sinking ship.  Change is in the air, I expect them to act more and more desperate to hold on to the power they have.  A rational country like ours allows protests with only people wanting to inflict harm being thrown around. 

It's thought out, to the extent that authoritarian rulers inevitably run into difficulty maintaining legitimacy and resort to tactics that democracies would not in order to remain in power. 

Of course, a second component is that this is a theocracy, meaning that a challenge to the rulers is depicted as a challenge to divine providence and, thus, must be dealt with as such.  In other words, if your claim to power is God, then when the people challenge you they cannot possibly be right ...it's a flawed story with a flawed result.  You dance with the girl that brung ya, as they say, and after thirty years of theocratic rule based in the infallibility of government and God, you can't suddenly let up and say "my bad".  Rational doesn't always mean doing something good.  It means doing what's best, given your goals, and we must be willing to accept the fact that the goals of the Iranian regime are not what we might have as our goals if we led that same country.  Hell, Saddam did exactly that...fixed elections and brutalized his opponents throughout the population, and he was able to hold on to power for 25 years.  If the goal is to remain in power, then they can't just pull a mea culpa out of their asses and expect that people won't notice.   

[Axl4Prez2004]

Freedom...very well-said.   

[Smoking Guns]

Freedom...very well-said.   

Rational = Theocracy?  Isn't that looney enough?!?!?!?!  To me, that proves they are making decisions for the wrong reasons already.  You guys are right in that this is how they want it, but in that context everyone is rational.  If I am a drug addict and love drugs, I am being rational by stealing from my family and beating my kids, and doing a shitty job at work so I can maintain my habbit.  I guess the 9/11 hijackers were very rational thinkers because they thought they were going to see Allah and they had a good plan.  Hitler, Chavez, Castro, all are very rational people too.  Actually, I would say Hitlar was, he was HIGHLY intelligent.  I just think RIGHT NOW they are acting desperate and irrational because they are doing things they don't normally do because they feel threatend.  Now they are trying to deflect.  Its very interesting to see.

[Axl4Prez2004]

^Hitler had a piss-poor military mind.  His talents as an orator were legendary.  He had natural leadership abilities.  He was not though, I repeat, he was not a great military mind.  His mistakes over-ruling the generals are well-chronicled. 

btw, I think Freedom meant "rational" in an ends justifies the means sort of way.  Irrational is not equal to inappropriate.  Perhaps "predictable" is a better term. 

the analogy with the drug addict doesn't hold up...a "rational" drug addict could justify the stealing to get the drug money.  The beating of the kids doesn't get the "rational" tag because if you beat the kids, you run a higher risk of going to jail and not getting drugs.  Doing a shitty job at work doesn't fit either as that means less money for drugs.

The 9/11 hijackers were not insane.  They were calculating, albeit misguided in my eyes, rational humans with a huge fucking chip on their shoulders.  Hitler, Chavez, and Castro were/are rational individuals. 

 

[Smoking Guns]

ra⋅tion⋅al  /ˈr?ʃənl, ˈr?ʃnl/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [rash-uh-nl, rash-nl]  Show IPA
Use Rational in a Sentence
?adjective 1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development. 
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator. 
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational. 
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings. 
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty. 
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation. 
7. Mathematics. a. capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two integers.
b. (of a function) capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two polynomials.
 
8. Classical Prosody. capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.

?noun 9. Mathematics. rational number. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1350?1400; ME racional < L ratiōnālis, equiv. to ratiōn- (s. of ratiō) reason + -ālis -al 1

Related forms:

ra⋅tion⋅al⋅ly, adverb
ra⋅tion⋅al⋅ness, noun


Synonyms:
2. intelligent, wise, judicious, sagacious, enlightened. 6. See reasonable.


Antonyms:
2. stupid. 3. insane.


This is from Webster's Dictionary.  You consider these men "wise" and "enlightened"?  Or using "good judgement"?  They kill people that don't agree with them.  They are bullies.  The word rational shouldn't be wasted in scum.

[Smoking Guns]

I like Michael and all, but what about North Korea and them saying they will blow us off Earth?  Thoughts?

[pilferk]

China doesn't want us to physically retaliate though right?

So if the Chinese are against us attacking N Korea. I don't know what we can do.

No, actually.

The Chinese don't want us to attack N Korea.  They also don't want N Korea attacking the US OR having nukes (because when you've got a psychotic, wacko neighbor, you don't want them to have WMD's for obvious reasons).  IF N Korea initiated aggression, I actually think the Chinese would be the ones on N.K.'s doorstep.  That's rather the point in all this.  We have to take steps to protect ourselves, but so long as we don't throw the first punch....I think we'd be OK.

It's all a big poker game, but at the end of the day the Chinese and the US are holding the better hands, and everyone at the table knows it.  The problem is, the guy sitting at the table representing NK is certifiably nuts....  If NK actually was stupid enough to go all in, they'd end up a big pile of ash.  The problem is, the guy placing the bet either doesn't care, wouldn't notice, or both.

[pilferk]

I like Michael and all, but what about North Korea and them saying they will blow us off Earth?  Thoughts?

Typical NK inflammatory rhetoric, ratcheted up to it's logical next level.

Look, if you were a 275 lb trained fighter and a 97lb blowhard came up to you and started screaming, spitting in your face, and telling you they were going to beat the hell out of you....what are your thoughts?

Because that's what we're looking at.  The only think the 97lb blowhard has is that he's got 2 inch shiv shoved in his pocket, and a very reluctant 275 lb trained fighter for a quasi-friend..who is sorta leary of the blowhard, and not all that happy about having to support him.  OH, and you  know about both...

They're throwing a tantrum to try to get what they want, and they don't really have any way to compel us to give it to them.  So they're stomping their heels, making a show of quasi-force, making as much noise as they can, and throwing around idle threats.  It's all they really have left...depending on the quasi-friend they have in China to be just enough of a threat to keep us from blowing them back to the stone age.  That protection, I suspect, only extends til NK makes any sort of direct attack on the US.  Once that happens, all bets with China are off...and NK knows it.

I'm not saying they're not dangerous.  They are, but not entirely in the way you're suggesting.  They don't have the capabilities to do more than slightly bloody our noses if they get in a lucky shot.  But what we CAN'T do is rise to the bait (like we did with Iraq).....because that's when the Chinese WOULD step in, and we'd get ourselves into trouble. 

[loretian]

WSJ: Global warming skeptics grow in number


Excerpts:

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion."

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Another: MIT team baffled as to why their scientific study shows global warming to be part of the earth's natural cycle, and not man-made

A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.