Yes, I find it odd that "everyone else" whines about American arrogance while expecting us to lead the way and solve their problems.

Now back to the subject. Yesterday our new fiscal conservative president met with the White House Press Corpse and praised Congress for supporting his "request to restore the pay-as-you-go rule." That was exactly what the Trojan Horse Dems of 2006 did in 2007. That worked out well didn't it?

He demonstrated again he's either learned nothing from recent elections and the public reaction to Obamacare by saying, "What I agree with is that the public has soured on the process that they saw over the last year. I think that actually contaminates how they view the substance of the bills."

Once again we stupid Americans just don't know what's good for us, if we'd just let him pass his agenda we'll love it. No you Dufus, the process sucked but so did the substance.

He then went on about how businesses aren't expanding because they're waiting for Washington to do more, to fix health care and regulate banks.

Yeah that's it, business is waiting for more Washington before hiring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yes, I find it odd that "everyone else" whines about American arrogance while expecting us to lead the way and solve their problems.

---

No, only you say that to make yourself feel better.

Didn't the President say he learned the lesson of the Scott Brown win and that he wanted to work on jobs jobs jobs?

Anyway;the Republicans should seize the opportunity that the President is giving them by offering a telecast pow wow on Republican alternatives to the regurgitated sausage that is the substance of the two health care bills the Dems have crafted .

It would give them an opportunity to introduce to the public some of their ideas that never got a fair hearing during the debate .Ideas like Congressman Paul Ryan's and Senator Tom Coburn's 'Patients Choice Act'.(HR2520)
Coburn being a physician himself has some insight into the true issues about health care the country should here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

No, only you say that to make yourself feel better.

---

So not only are you the forum monitor you're also the forum psychoanalyst. Impressive.

I'm not sure this is the right thread for this comment/question, but----

Obama has spent a full year trying to resolve the Iran nuclear issue by diplomacy, and it has obviously not worked.

Now, a year later, there is no more time for diplomacy. There may not even be time for sanctions if Iran's nuclear drive is to be stopped.

So what is left to be done?

My question, then, is this.

Has Obama's policy toward Iran actually INCREASED the probability of an expanded Middle Eastern war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

And it is not, until there's an earthquake, or a tsunami, or a famine, or an invasion, or a civil war causing umpteen refugees. Then it's "Where are the Americans?" and "Why haven't the Americans sent more aid/troops/relief?"

---

Some people might say that but only because you have made yourselves out to be the saviour of the world some of us know better we know you have no more answers than the rest of us. But let's face it, you like the idea. Now let us see how well you do in stuffing up Haiti

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

stuffing up Haiti

---

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this expression. Would you elucidate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Some people might say that but only because you have made yourselves out to be the saviour of the world some of us know better we know you have no more answers than the rest of us. But let's face it, you like the idea. Now let us see how well you do in stuffing up Haiti

---

Given the level of human suffering in Haiti, I would expect a somewhat less cold comment from you, in particular.

Did it come across harsher than you intended?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this expression. Would you elucidate?

---

As in SNAS(F)U situation normal all stuffed up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

as in SNAS(F)U situation normal all stuffed up

---

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Given the level of human suffering in Haiti, I would expect a somewhat less cold comment from you, in particular.

Did it come across harsher than you intended?

---

I'm not against Haiti, those people need all the help they can get, my comment is about those who profess to have the ability to help and their ability to deliver. Past performance would suggest that Haiti may not get what it needs, but what someoneelse wants to give them.

So;
They will get surplus food and their agriculture will be ruined
They will get outside contractors and what little employment there may be will disappear
They will get military construction teams and they will learn nothing
They will get short term medical teams and their health will degenerate
They will get bulldozed and their stock of buildings and buiding materials will be depleted
They will learn to live in tents because that will be all they have

In WWII the result of this in the South Pacific gave rise to the cargo cult so a new cargo cult will form in Haiti

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

They will ... live

---

Had to edit your statement so as to point out the alternative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Had to edit your statement so as to point out the alternative.

---

Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about, that's what happens when you edit someonelse's statements

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

sorry I have no idea what you are talking about, that's what happens when you edit someonelse's statements

---

They will live - thanks to American assistance

If Haiti had to wait on Hugo Chavez or the UN they wouldn't.

How they live (the thrust of your statement) is up to them.

Clete you of course are talking about the long term effect of nations giving "aid " to a dysfunctional country. I agree and addressed that on the Haiti OP .

What Cats is talking about is the US ability to deliver disaster relief ;and as I pointed out in the Haiti post (at the price of being personally attacked ) was that no other nation has the ability to deliver as much as rapidly.The reason that is true is because we invest a lot into our military capability .

Thanks, Tom.

No matter who wants to boast or complain, NOBODY would be providing aid to the Haitians without the U.S. Navy doing the dog work of opening the harbor. I take a great deal of pride in this as a former Corpse-man (to get back on topic).

Quote:

---

I'm not sure this is the right thread for this comment/question, but----

Obama has spent a full year trying to resolve the Iran nuclear issue by diplomacy, and it has obviously not worked.

Now, a year later, there is no more time for diplomacy. There may not even be time for sanctions if Iran's nuclear drive is to be stopped.

So what is left to be done?

My question, then, is this.

Has Obama's policy toward Iran actually INCREASED the probability of an expanded Middle Eastern war?

---

The Mahdihatter announced today that they have reached a milestone producing 20% uranium enrichment. Although this is not the 80-90% needed to produce weapons grade plutonium ;it is just a matter of time before that is achieved. They have demonstrated an ability to enrich uranium. They are in the homestretch .

They have claimed that their program is for peaceful purposes but the "west" and the "international community "has countered with an offer of a swap ;providing them with reactor rods for the operation of commerial nuclear plants for their enriched uranium. If their purpose was commercial it would be logical for them to jump at the offer.
The swap offer has been rejected along with every other "carrot " ;"extended hand to a closed fist " plan so far proposed.

So yes ;the options are dwindling rapidly if the goal is to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

One option I wish the administration would consider is supporting the demonstrators who today are getting the snot beat out of them by the goon squads the Mullahs hired on the 31st anniversary of the Revolution .
The underlying problem here is not nuclear weapons but the nature of the jackboot regime that will acquire them .

Yes it would be a legitimate argument for the President to say that this is a situation he inherited .What he inheritted is the Presidency and a leader of the free world!!
When will he quit hiding behind this strawman and act like a leader ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

One option I wish the administration would consider is supporting the demonstrators who today are getting the snot beat out of them by the goon squads the Mullahs hired on the 31st anniversary of the Revolution .

---

I'm not holding my breath for that one.

Quote:

---

Yes it would be a legitimate argument for the President to say that this is a situation he inherited .What he inheritted is the Presidency and a leader of the free world!!
When will he quit hiding behind this strawman and act like a leader ?

---

Again, I'm not holding my breath for that. As I mentioned before on his surprise visit with the WH Press Corpse, he called for bipartisanship and "a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics" on the same day his deputy national security adviser claimed his critics only "serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

In response to that and the fumbling of the Eunuch Bomber's case, Sen Kit Bond called on Brennan to resign and Pete Hoekstra called for his firing.

The WH response?

"We regret Senator Bond's assault on Mr. Brennan, and urge everyone who has taken an oath to protect the country to resist the temptation to play politics on these very serious matters of national security."

Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that holding the administration accountable (just like dissent) was patriotic?

Quote:

---

Again, I'm not holding my breath for that. As I mentioned before on his surprise visit with the WH Press Corpse, he called for bipartisanship and "a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics" on the same day his deputy national security adviser claimed his critics only "serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

In response to that and the fumbling of the Eunuch Bomber's case, Sen Kit Bond called on Brennan to resign and Pete Hoekstra called for his firing.

---

This is the type of response I was expecting on my op about the Obama anti-terror policy.

Kit Bond is a long time member of the Intelligence Committee .He and Peter King in the House have been shut out on even rudimentary briefings by Brennan . King calls Brennan an egomaniac and I have to agree.

Well, "Bush did it" along with "it's Bush's fault" seems to encompass much of the administration's policy. Even Bush I...

All during Obama's campaign he swore there would be no middle class tax increases. A year ago he made it "perfectly clear" that no one making less than $250,000 would see a dime of tax increases.

Today?

Quote:

---

President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.

Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”

---

He just needs to spend more time in front of the American people making himself "perfectly clear."

Another Obamateurism caught by Hugh Hewitt...

Quote:

---

President Say Anything
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 7:42 PM

Today President Obama told Senate Democrats that they had faced "enormous procedural obstacles that are unprecedented.."

"You had to cast more votes to break filibusters last year than in the entire 1950s and 1960s combined. That's 20 years of obstruction jammed into just one."

This is astonishing. A filibuster is the successful use of 41 or more votes to prevent the closing of debate. There wasn't a single filibuster in 2009. Not one.

The president will say anything to advance a narrative that makes him a victim of obstruction. It is clear that 2010 will be spent pivoting from his 2009 mantra of Bush's fault to his campaign year blasts at the "do nothing Republicans."

His advisors must foresee grim news on jobs to offer up such a transparent and unpersuasive, indeed almost purposefully alienating argument.

---

Details.