The I Told You So Obama Will Fuck Up Thread

[Shindekudasai]

4. Been to other countries and as one example South Korea does not let anyone non South Korea to own anything unless you get married with someone from that country.

Dude, sorry, but that is simply not true. While it may not be easy for foreigners to buy real estate in South Korea, it's not true that non-citizens are not allowed to own any property. Part of their industry and probably half of their stock market wouldn't work.

So tell me what countries out there that let people from other country to buy and own property?

You gotta be joking, right. Ok, here's one example for you: how about every single country in the European Union? Or every ASEAN-country....and most of the countries in South America and Africa...

that their economy does not rely on borrowing money from other countries? (you make it sound like the U.S. is the only one out there)

When did I say that? Don't try to win a discussion by countering arguments you invented and put in my mouth. My point was that the US (government and economy both) is the probably biggest debtor/borrower in the world right now, and still people like you behave like you own the world. Well, you may think you own it, doesn't change the fact that you pay interest to half the world for lending it to you.

1. I never owned a house even do I have what is called a quarantedd VA home loan, I chose to rent instead.
2. Own one small car and it's paid off.
3. Don't live off the goverment even though I only work part time job.

5. what's wrong with being isolated? you all complain that the world is so bad because of us and our sorry ass president agrees, then let the world fend for itself to see how well you all be. Let me see perharps the Russians will lead Europe into greatness or China can probably take over half of the world...

Humility ok, how about all the fucking countries in the world start appoligizing also, let's all do group counseling and move on, but I refuse that the U.S. is the only one to blame.

Once again Obama needs to get to the center and stop his breaking of years of tradition as in being the leading country in the world and show some leadership and balls. What happens if North korea, Iran or Russia acts up? well he can't say anything bad or to offensive because he's supposed to be mending our relationship with these "role model" countries the so called "citizens of the world"


By the way you want humility then start appologizing for the extermination of so many pre columbian tribes and great civilzations (Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, Native Americans) that were exterminated under European invasion of the new world, or WWW I, WWW II, not doing nothing during the "etnic cleansings in Bosnia", or the many slaves that were taken from African and sent to the new world among many other things...

Well first of all, I wasn't talking about your personal situation. I was talking about your attitude and the situation in general, which actually kinda forbids that attitude at the moment. I named the real estate market as just one example. Want me to continue with the crash of the New Economy or with the whole desaster that evolved (and in part still is evolving) around Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, General Motors, Washington Mutual,...?

And one more thing: every time you need money or resources we're supposed to nod "Yes! Yes!" and wag our tail in joyful stupidity, but the US is allowed to blow off the deal at any time? Sorry, dude, but international relations are not that simple.
And you still rage on and wonder about why there's people out there that think the world would be a better place without America? Well, good job pouring oil into their fire with that attitude. :thumbsup: Because honestly, this time (the whole financial and economic crisis going on), you really are the ones to blame.

There have been many more or less big "superpowers" in history before: China, Carthage, Rome/Italy, Macedonia/Greece, Germany, Britain, France, Spain, Russia, Japan etc. And when the US is long gone, others will follow in its footsteps. The US is not the epitome of historical supremacy.
And you're jumbling so many different historical events, settings and aspects in your posting, that its meaning is reduced to a pile of rubbish. It would take pages and pages to answer to all that, and we all know that Philbert would get a headache if I did that, considering how he always complains about the length of my postings.

But good luck with that whole isolation thing though, what with China, Singapore, Kuwait and Dubai alone holding 4,000 billion dollars in consolidated funds/state funds and all...

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Thousands entering your state is caused by the bailouts? How so? And since the very first round of bailouts were pushed, passed and enacted by Bush, hows is it now just an Obama phenomenon?

It's more based on state incompetence, but I am convinced the line between states rights and the federal government is not clear anymore. And it's not just an Obama phenomenon.

 

[Shindekudasai]

That was, even for you, pretty jumbled. There's no "probably " needed there.

I didn't jumble anything.

News Flash Monkey Man...we were mostly Euro immigrants, no way you can change that...live with it.

The usual petty insult aside, you once again counter a point I never made. I never said, that the emigration to the country later known as the US wasn't mostly from Europe.
And I also never said, that I can't live with it. You should probably start living with the fact, that at least half of the European emigrants going to America were considered religious fanatics, deadbeats or economic failures where they came from.
And in fact, you were mostly Native Americans until about 3/4 of them were killed off until the end of the 18th century. So you were mostly Native Americans and that balance just shifted at some point.

I don't concern myself with glory, historical rep points, or whatever.

Well, for someone who doesn't, you sure are hell-bent on claiming that I as a historical professional have allegedly no idea what I'm talking about and you as a person, who can adress me only as "Monkey Man", know so very much about it.

No one can put it all in a clear and accurate perspective and state a clear precise path taken and the intentions of the participants. History is a general description of perceived events, not a concise record.

That was actually the only smart thing in your whole posting, as this is a credible theory about the construction of history. But you know what, someone else had this idea some decades before you already.

I get it...you live in an academic environment and think you know what is going on...not.

Ehm, yeah....reality check for you: the study of history takes place in an academic environment, not in a corn field or on a construction site. If you can't live with that, you should just join up with your friends in Neanderthal. They didn't believe in science, universities, academic environments and all that crap either...

What I said is clear and specific...trying to change what I said to make yourself look wise is once again a failed attempt at self-love.
Not impressed.
Anyone who is, has a limited vocabulary or slow reading skills.

Dude, excellent self-description once again. :thumbsup: And once again insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

(BTW, You Misused hypocritical.)

Btw, you probably meant to say, "history is what it is", not "what is is". And btw btw, as btw is an abbreviation of an English term, it probably should be written "btw" rather than "BTW".


Edit:
Oh and thanks for the negative rep over nothing once again. Real mature.

 

[Gordar]

Great history lesson...since we were pretty much Dutch, French, German, English, and every nationality then...there wasn't an America before we became a country. Duh...

Not entirely true. Except for the English part, none of it is actually true. As you might have noticed, most immigrants came to the US in the 19th century, which was after the British colonies, who's people bowed to the British king & were thus British, became independent. The French colonies also joined after the first 13 became independent.

It was the Europeans pretty much who committed the many wars and exterminations that today's Europeans fault the US for having committed...since we were made up almost completely of European immigrants.
Feeling guilty about that, are you?

Yes, 2 wars were started by us, mainly because we adopted an attitude the US often adopts as well. But if a certain so called 'neutral' nation had not become outraged after Germany sank a ship transporting supplies to a nation it was at war with, the outcome of the 1st war might have been totally different and there might not even have been a 2nd war.

Simply put, you didn't mind your own business back then and now, 90-95 years later, you cannot turn back now & if you don't, which you can't, it might be smarter to stop treating the rest of the world like shit.

And about the exterminations, yes, some nations in Europe did treat some peoples bad, just like the US did. The difference is that we don't currently put them in camps if they want to continue living the way their ancestors did.

And no, even though my nation was the 2nd biggest slave trading nation in the world, I don't feel guilty about that. I've accepted it as being part of what my ancestors, not I, did. If someone asks, I'll apologize in the name of my ancestors.

Maybe you should try to stay within the last 50-60 years of history if you wanna compare who did what for whom.
Just a thought...

No, I usually limit myself to 10 years. The Dutch offered to build a system similar to the delta works just after the disaster that hit Louisiana. The Cubans offered medical assistance, which Bush refused to accept. The Chinese are for the most part paying the US's debts. France, Japan, England, the Netherlands, Germany and many other countries offered to help you in 2 wars that were not our own both financially and by sending troops.

What has Bush/US done? They lied to their allies to start an unnecessary war in Iraq and plunged the world in an economic recession.

If someone tells me that I should be grateful and should help you no matter what because you helped us 60 years ago, then I simply counter that by digging a bit deeper into history.

What if something happened to the US tomorrow and the French decided to help you? What if something happened to France in 3 years from now and you decided to help the French. Would you only look back 7 years in 10 years from now?

 

[georges]

Kissy Cheek as well, those two ? :lovecoupl

ukey:

:grins:


Oh, and the pres' I'll pass thank you very much on a 6 or 8 course dinner with Fra. Pres. Sarkozy . . . and his skipping of a tradition in the American Presidency to observe Normandy. :flame: no thanks (he doesn't have time to visit the graves of a bunch of dead white guys).

Obama has no patriotism and yet some people have the nerve to say that he represents all Americans. No, he doesn't represent all Americans, he represents people from the ghetto crowd and the trash. He has sympathy for people like him like Oprah and Farrakhan. If he had a single ounce of patriotism, he would have gone to the cemetery where american soldiers that died on D day have been burried. Aside kissing the UN's ass and not having a firm position against Iran and other rogue regimes, I see only a weak strategy from the Obama administration. As usual, European governments prefer a weak minded democrat to a strong minded (even unilateralist) republican. If you have no pride and no patriotism and only stick by what other nations told you to do, you are definitely not representing your own country and certainly not leading your own country by your own but you are only a submissive person that is a yes man and that should get empeached as a president. This is what I personally think and please people don't get mad at me because I expressed my honest thoughts.

 

[Hot Mega]

he represents people from the ghetto crowd and the trash.

Really?? Pretty amazing that a guy with 2 Ivy League degrees who's never lived in a ghetto would be representing the ghetto.

 

[Member2019]

God I hate the political one-sided bullshit in this thread (on both sides) ...

What has Bush/US done? They lied to their allies to start an unnecessary war in Iraq and plunged the world in an economic recession.

That's naivity.

First off, the first recession of W.'s Presidency was hardly his doing. Secondly, the housing boom was just another "false wealth" cycle that just "made worse" the stock boom that was also "false wealth." People who keep telling themselves otherwise, and trying to blame just 1 person for all of it are just more of the reason why this bullshit goes on and on, and they never learn.

Secondly, this "lied to their allies" has to go. The UK was also involved with much of the same intelligence, as was the Clinton administration prior. Clinton's words were no different. W. just made a case that even I disagreed with, and that's on him. I was against going into Iraq in 2003 (although I was for it in 1998, but that's another story).

So I will put 100% of the blame on invading Iraq on W. But if you think the "problem" with Iraq, let alone the US economy, was W.'s alone, that's just naive. The war didn't create this recession, which started before W. I'll full agree W. made it worse, but it starts well before W., and I don't blame Clinton either.

It was and still is the lack of Americans taking capitalism with the responsibility it requires. That has been going on since the '70s, by far.

Now, with all that said ...

Obama has some balls to do with he did with those pirates, by just finally sending in US Navy Seals. The US now set a policy that it will not negotiate with pirates on terms the US will not tolerate, and is not afraid to take them out.

There are still a number of western citizens as hostages in Somalia. Now what happens to them? Are the pirates willing to now kill as well? Or do they just not touch Americans? Do you think all American allies might agree with that policy?

It will be interesting to watch. But make no mistake, it's starting to look like Obama has some of Reagan's "no bullshit" bite. We'll see what comes of it. Especially if Obama is so willing to take a stand like this, even against the wishes of some of its own allies for fear of what might happen to its citizens.

Really?? Pretty amazing that a guy with 2 Ivy League degrees who's never lived in a ghetto would be representing the ghetto.

Have to agree. Obama is neither representative nor "the savior" of such. At the same time, some of his socialist policies still scare the shit out of me, especially if he implements them at a federal level.

In all honesty, I'm starting to see this as the end of American freedom. I'm not the only one. As much as people blame W. for it, and can't stop talking about things, I'm not seeing any shift in internal policy during this administration. Adding to the problem is the "singularity blame" people want to apply, which causes them to miss the fact that it's a general attitude in leadership, and not tied to one leader at all.

One visit to how Congress voted both before 2006 and after 2006, and now in 2009, tells a lot about how it's continuing.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: God I hate the political one-sided bullshit in this thread (on both sides) ...

just finally sending in US Navy Seals.

"finally"?? When you have hostage takers in a situation like this, time is the ally of the rescue team. That aside, from an operational standpoint this went over as swiftly as it safely could have.

Consider this, the time it takes for the decision to be made to deploy at USSOCOM, the initial assessment, deployment to the theater, recon, planning, timing and execution...this was pulled off as successfully and swiftly as it safely could have been IMO.:2 cents:

 

[Member2019]

Figure of speech ...

"finally"?? When you have hostage takers in a situation like this, time is the ally of the rescue team. That aside, from an operational standpoint this went over as swiftly as it safely could have.

Consider this, the time it takes for the decision to be made to deploy at USSOCOM, the initial assessment, deployment to the theater, recon, planning, timing and execution...this was pulled off as successfully and swiftly as it safely could have been IMO.:2 cents:

My use of "finally" was not one of "haste," but just a figure of speech, as in the "final decision."

I.e., after all the negotiations, the final decision was to use force.

I wasn't even attempting analyze the operation, just the political decision that was made. Or didn't you get that from "balls"?

But your quick instinct to read into what I said has been noted. You may wish to consider the context I say something in next time.

And the fact that I'm a former defense engineer myself, I'm not as ignorant of various operations as you seem to suggest.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Figure of speech ...

My use of "finally" was not one of "haste," but just a figure of speech, as in the "final decision."

I.e., after all the negotiations, the final decision was to use force.

And the fact that I'm a former defense engineer myself, I'm not as ignorant of various operations as you seem to suggest.

If that's the context you meant it, I take you at your word. It merely read to me as if you believed there was some deliberation or hesitation before a decision was made to deploy SEALs. In either case, it's not worth bickering about IMO. I misinterpreted the context of what you wrote, you clarified yourself...and that's the end of it.

I never intended to suggest you are ignorant of anything. My explanation is in the context of my interpretation of your use of "finally" and my personal experience with tactics and the various phases of an operation like that.

Needless to say it's probably true we both feel appropriately good about the conclusion and HOO-YAA US Navy SEALS!:glugglug:

 

[Member2019]

Re: Figure of speech ...

If that's the context you meant it, I take you at your word. It merely read to me as if you believed there was some deliberation or hesitation before a decision was made to deploy SEALs.

Thanx for taking my word at its value.

I was actually complementing Obama for letting negotiations take their due course, and then being decisive when they did not go the way of a peaceful resolution. At the same time, it's going to open a can of worms, but I think the can opening was necessary.

The fact that negotiations give special forces the time to partially, if not adequately, prepare for a possible move is typical. I didn't even think of such when I was posting before.

In either case, it's not worth bickering about IMO. I misinterpreted the context of what you wrote, you clarified yourself...and that's the end of it.

Again, I thank you.

I never intended to suggest you are ignorant of anything. My explanation is in the context of my interpretation of your use of "finally" and my personal experience with tactics and the various phases of an operation like that.

If I did mean it in that way, it would be ignorance. I'm more than willing to call out my own ignorance when I am, even after someone corrects me. In this case, I wasn't even referring to the tactical analysis, just the political.

Needless to say it's probably true we both feel appropriately good about the conclusion and HOO-YAA US Navy SEALS!:glugglug:

In all honesty, it was good to see Obama be decisive. The next steps will even be tougher.

If there was one thing I got tired with W., it was indecisiveness until well after it was "too late" to do what he did. He would go on explaining things, as if self-doubting the course of action he did, eventually take. And that makes me question.

Again, we'll see what happens next. It will take some resolve on Obama's part. But as long as he's willing to set a policy and stick to it, he has my backing. It's not going to be pretty, but it will be a policy that will work.

He's reminding me of Reagan in his foreign policy decisions, unlike W.

 

[Curious Plumber]

yeah, isn't it horrible, now he has a portuguese water dog, man he's the worst president ever...give the man time.

 

[Facetious]

Re: Figure of speech ...

At the same time, it's going to open a can of worms,

Oh, you mean bringing the Somali kid back to America for trial ? Or the other Obama Admin. can-o-worms - sticking their necks out with the proposal to build a Somali Coast Guard at the expense of . . . . you guessed it, the American Taxpayer.
If Barak Obama has the ambition to build a Somali Coast Guard, why doesn't he have his hat extended out to the likes of Maersk Line, China Ocean Shipping.CO. (COSCO) and Hanjin among others ?

Want me to continue with the crash of the New Economy or with the whole desaster that evolved (and in part still is evolving) around Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, General Motors, Washington Mutual,...?

Sure, why not ? Let's hear just one more rendition from beginning to end how it all went down. Can you throw in Enron and Global Crossing too ? Who's fault did you say the current econ crisis is ? Oh, here it is ->

Because honestly, this time (the whole financial and economic crisis going on), you really are the ones to blame.

Could you be a little less vague ? Shit ,I never even carry a c.c.balance for more than 60 days. If I find myself short one month I'll pick up additional side jobs or whatever before I go deep into the credit cards, it's called hustle and personal responsibility. Who's to blame ?

And you're jumbling so many different historical events, settings and aspects in your posting,

I think that you got it backwards with your plethora of vagaries, ambiguities and approximations.

. But good luck with that whole isolation thing though, what with China, Singapore, Kuwait and Dubai alone holding 4,000 billion dollars in consolidated funds/state funds and all...

That's OK, I remember when the Japanese were acquiring hotels, casinos, golf courses . . anything and everything in American Real Estate 'till their economy went south and then they had to sell most of their holdings back to us 'mericans . :rofl:

history repeats

 

[Analingus]

I've been away for a while so forgive this late add on. Obama has already shown his colors by laying off teachers in my area when he said "no teachers will be laid off."


I hate to say I told you all, but I told you all. Just a politician he is.

 

[Hot Mega]

I've been away for a while so forgive this late add on. Obama has already shown his colors by laying off teachers in my area when he said "no teachers will be laid off."


I hate to say I told you all, but I told you all. Just a politician he is.

Those teachers worked for your state government and whatever teachers were laid off were as a result of local, district decisions.

When did Obama say no teachers would be laid off?

 

[Analingus]

Those teachers worked for your state government and whatever teachers were laid off were as a result of local, district decisions.

When did Obama say no teachers would be laid off?

Before he was elected. Had you been paying attention, you would know that.

 

[Hot Mega]

Before he was elected. Had you been paying attention, you would know that.

I assume you have a link to this to support your assertion. The links I could find say no such nonsense. Admit it, you've heard a word he's said without the filter of Faux, Hannity or "Lush" and you're no different from those lying saying Obama is going to take our "guns".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC5LyBWnyKQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0L2GEBhd2w

 

[Analingus]

I assume you have a link to this to support your assertion. If not, you're no different from those lying saying Obama is going to take our "guns".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC5LyBWnyKQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0L2GEBhd2w

I don't need to supply a Youtube link. I saw him say it on tele.

 

[Hot Mega]

I saw him say it on tele.

Uh, yeah...we know...you saw it

 

[Hot Mega]

Before he was elected. Had you been paying attention, you would know that.

At the risk of arguing with dummy....I'll make my point then I'm done with you.

First of all, any effect a new administration could ever have on any state function regarding funding is after that administration's budget was approved and passed into law.

Obama said in March of 2009 during his speech on his Recovery Act no teachers would be laid off not before he was elected.

Many teachers who have been laid off as a result of state budget cuts will largely be rehired after those states receive their funding under Obama's Recovery Act.

Even if he did say it before he was elected he still could make good on that after his budget is passed.

If they are largely rehired as a result of his Recovery Act then all of your horse shit blathering is moot.:spump: