President Obama launches re-election campaign

[WarpSpeed]

He's a likable fellow and clearly very intelligent.

Yes, the very definition of a con man..

[WarpSpeed]

I'm not thrilled with Obama. But I don't feel like the naive fool for voting for him rather than McCain and Palin.

(The implication in your stance is that they would have certainly been better -- I don't have any reason to think so. Rather the contrary, I should think; ie I have reason to think they would not).

No, I don't feel like a naive fool. Especially since I never idealized him in the first place - as so many did.

The only hang up was Palin but she was the "Vice Presidential candidate" not the Presidential candidate which in this case has proven to be far worse of a choice... Everyone was concerned about McCain's age and possible demise in office which was a reach and obviously to this point false concern.

[SteeleJoe]

I blame the American people for being uneducated about their own self interest.

See we do agree on politics. Which is why he should have never been voted into office on the first place. Personally I myself have more management and business experience then he does and we're virtually the same age, the major difference between us is I have integrity and I don't have any owners..

But you weren't on the ballot as far as I know.

The only real option was Mr Obama or McCain/Palin -- which you keep leaving out of the equation. it's not simply a matter of not voting for Obama, it's matter of electing his opponents, but you've yet to state that they were more honest and/or otherwise qualified. That's fine, the thread isn't about rehashing that election. But if you keep insisting that one shouldn't have voted for Obama, then you are ultimately saying we should have chosen the other guys...but your lack of support for that is conspicuous in its absence.

[WarpSpeed]

Obama could have tried to be a greater leader and insisted on a Canadian style system or nothing. But he would have gotten nothing. I can't blame him for trying to get something. In this case, I blame the American people for being uneducated about their own self interest.

BTW, I am totally not blinded by Obama at all. I was never a true believer. I just know whoever the far right wing R party puts up will be much worse.

How come he always looks like he's posing for a picture? Or at least the few times I've seen him tha's how he looks.;

LaoPo

:cheesy: :clap2:

[mark45y]

In political marriages love rarely comes into play so eliminating the unlikely reasons the only one remaining is fear.

As for me, if the President of the US is afraid of someone I think that is a good person to be afraid of.

Huh. It isn't love (even though according to you, that is possible though rare). So it must be fear (not, say, other mutually beneficial factors); so you can state as fact that he was and is with Hillary because he is/was afraid of her. Thus you were terrified of her (though apparently not quite sure why, other than that POTUS was scared).

OK, then. Thanks.

If I would have known Bill better I would have asked him. I didn't know him that well. I don't have any inside information. If I did I wouldn't divulge it anyway.

If she runs for President all the old stuff will come out again and we can all look at it again and make a further evaluation.

But all the information has been discussed before and it gets older and less believable with the passage of time. Whitewater, the Downside legacy and the Darkside stuff has all been examined and mostly dismissed.

Maybe some new things will surface, who knows.

I put two and two together and get an answer you may do the same thing and get a different answer. Like you said it is mostly subjective.

Probably a more topical question to ask is why Obama made her Secretary of State. That gave her a platform to launch another Presidential bid and filled in any holes she may have had in foreign policy experience. Is Obama afraid of Hillary? Why did he give her the job? Is Hillary going to go all out and campaign for Obama in the early stages?

[WarpSpeed]

He's a likable fellow and clearly very intelligent. I think he lacks a mysterious ingredient that makes for a great leader (as opposed to a great campaigner/speech giver). I didn't see it in his campaign either, which is why I supported Hillary, who I do believe has the right stuff.

Hmm... there's a fellow American here on board who knows and met her and doesn't agree with you. He was terrified of her. He called her a very dangerous woman...

FWIW

LaoPo

Why do you think Bill's still married to her ??

[WarpSpeed]

Hmm... there's a fellow American here on board who knows and met her and doesn't agree with you. He was terrified of her. He called her a very dangerous woman...

FWIW

LaoPo

Why do you think Bill's still married to her ??

Absolute irony we would post the same as I hadn't read that far before I posted..

That would be me. I like Bill. Bill is scared of her too.

[Jingthing]

Obama made her Secretary of State to bring the Hillary supporters fully on board, at least vote-wise. It worked. This is kind of academic. She isn't running in 2012 and she says she'll never run again. Frankly, sexist as it may sounds, how she looks by 2016 will matter more for her than for a male candidate and that may be a factor on whether she bothers to run in 2016. She doesn't want to lose again, that's for sure.

[WarpSpeed]

OK!

But I am, with many others, very confused but also curious WHY he did NOT close Guantanamo if it was so easy for him when he had the majority.

WHY NOT?...

Is there any simple plausible reason ?

LaoPo

Why do you and others blame Obama for something he was prevented from changing? The President did not have the legal authority to request the prisoners transferred. Don't let the legal reality stop any of you from blaming Obama though. People are not confused. They just need to bash someone.

Because he naively or intentionally, to gain votes, claimed he would so HE is accountable for his claims. He is supposed to be a Harvard graduate on constitutional law and he did not anticipate the legalities involved and therefore you accept that level of incompetence and deception as your POTUS?? And apologize for him to boot? My goodness .......

Edited April 6, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[SteeleJoe]

It is indeed shocking: a candidate making promises that couldn't or wouldn't keep.

And just think - the other side never would have done that.

(Who likes the fact that overambitious goals (sincerely believed in or not), hypocrisy and dishonesty are all part and parcel of the process? No one, I should think. But you seem to feel it doesn't have to be so. I wish I agreed).

[Steely Dan]

I think you were paying more attention than most people at the time to have even noticed that much (I happened to be paying attention too, as I'd started learning about Afghanistan sine the 80s for reasons of personal interest and tentative professional ambitions).

Taliban means "students" in Arabic -- but they were mostly former students of Pakistani madaariss (indoctrinated in Deobandi fundamentalist Islam), rather than what we'd think of in the west as a "student movement". And they almost certainly were in part motivated by a genuine desire to wipe out corruption and warlordism (though imposing their brand of theology and culture onto everything and everyone, like it or no,t was primary). Lord knows Afghanistan needed someone to do something. For that reason many people, in Afghanistan and out, thought as you did.

And you have good reason to worry about what happens next, IMO -- over the last couple months I have found myself in the awkward position of sympathizing with people who want self-determination and the end of oppression but fearing what will take place of the (unjust and unpalatable) status qou.

Mubarak? Autocratic, ruthless and often nasty ruler for life. But Egypt is the cradle of the Muslim Brotherhood and that ilk (the spiritual and political godfathers of al Qaeda et al) -- and they've been kept in check by Mubarak's boot on their neck.

Qaddafi? Even worse. But like other middle eastern tyrants, he's kept a lid on a nasty bunch of his own.

And yes, I believe there is every possibility that in both places they will wind up turning on us real soon (not to mention what they might have in store for their own people).

[but what really scares me and has for decades? Pakistan. But that's really off topic.]

EDITED FOR FORMAT

I agree with near enough every word you wrote. I would add that Iranian warships sailing up Suez tells you which way the wind is blowing regarding Egypt. We have a similar Muslim brotherhood vs incumbent despot situation in Syria too, but that's O/T.

What I did want to add is that I don't envy whoever gets to be U.S president;- Ancient Rome actually declined and fell due to a collapse in it's revenue (tax) base, I will take no pleasure if the same happens to the U.S as what followed Rome was the dark ages.

[mark45y]

Obama made her Secretary of State to bring the Hillary supporters fully on board, at least vote-wise. It worked. This is kind of academic. She isn't running in 2012 and she says she'll never run again. Frankly, sexist as it may sounds, how she looks by 2016 will matter more for her than for a male candidate and that may be a factor on whether she bothers to run in 2016. She doesn't want to lose again, that's for sure.

If she campaigns for him and does not run, then in the absence of other circumstances I am wrong about the woman. It would not fit my characterization of her.

[SteeleJoe]

Warpspeed: I just noticed you call yoruself a realist; in light of my last post perhaps you'd understand why I'm less than convinced of that as an accurate description.

[koheesti]

The only hang up was Palin but she was the "Vice Presidential candidate" not the Presidential candidate which in this case has proven to be far worse of a choice... Everyone was concerned about McCain's age and possible demise in office which was a reach and obviously to this point false concern.

I would have had Obama ahead of McCain in my dead pool because he was the person standing between Hillary and the Presidency. Expect him to get knocked off late summer before the Dem National Convention and Hillary to save the day and accept the nomination. Remember, there won't be any other candidates like you would normally get in primaries and ol' VP Joe Biden will be too old. That leaves Hillary as the only logical choice.

[SteeleJoe]

The only hang up was Palin but she was the "Vice Presidential candidate" not the Presidential candidate which in this case has proven to be far worse of a choice... Everyone was concerned about McCain's age and possible demise in office which was a reach and obviously to this point false concern.

I would have had Obama ahead of McCain in my dead pool because he was the person standing between Hillary and the Presidency. Expect him to get knocked off late summer before the Dem National Convention and Hillary to save the day and accept the nomination. Remember, there won't be any other candidates like you would normally get in primaries and ol' VP Joe Biden will be too old. That leaves Hillary as the only logical choice.

Do you think what I think you think?

[mark45y]

He's a likable fellow and clearly very intelligent. I think he lacks a mysterious ingredient that makes for a great leader (as opposed to a great campaigner/speech giver). I didn't see it in his campaign either, which is why I supported Hillary, who I do believe has the right stuff.

Hmm... there's a fellow American here on board who knows and met her and doesn't agree with you. He was terrified of her. He called her a very dangerous woman...

FWIW

LaoPo

Why do you think Bill's still married to her ??

Gennifer Flowers wouldn't let Bill Clinton tie her up in a sex game with Bill playing sadist although he let her tie him up so he could play masochist.

Perhaps the reason he married her was he was a masochist.

Psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel explains. Bill's masochistic impulses are more covert then his sadism in his public sexual life and also in his political life.

Gennifer Flowers felt intimidated and frightened 1992, Gennifer said, "I could have been killed.” Bill got the blame for it but I think she was really afraid of Hillary.

Hillary as sadist and Bill as masochist would explain the marriage. Apparently Bill referred to her as the Dragon.

[mark45y]

The only hang up was Palin but she was the "Vice Presidential candidate" not the Presidential candidate which in this case has proven to be far worse of a choice... Everyone was concerned about McCain's age and possible demise in office which was a reach and obviously to this point false concern.

I would have had Obama ahead of McCain in my dead pool because he was the person standing between Hillary and the Presidency. Expect him to get knocked off late summer before the Dem National Convention and Hillary to save the day and accept the nomination. Remember, there won't be any other candidates like you would normally get in primaries and ol' VP Joe Biden will be too old. That leaves Hillary as the only logical choice.

You mean I might not be the only person afraid of Hillary?

[chuckd]

OK!

But I am, with many others, very confused but also curious WHY he did NOT close Guantanamo if it was so easy for him when he had the majority.

WHY NOT?...

Is there any simple plausible reason ?

LaoPo

The President needed agreement from the US Congress to close the facility and move some of the prisoners to the USA. The US Congress refused to approve that transfer of prisoners.

Why do you and others blame Obama for something he was prevented from changing? The President did not have the legal authority to request the prisoners transferred. Don't let the legal reality stop any of you from blaming Obama though. People are not confused. They just need to bash someone.

The detainee prison at Guantanamo could have been closed by Executive Order. He signed an Executive Order, in the first days of his presidency, to close Guantanamo prison within one year. He then tried to find a state or nation willing to take them and nobody stood up with their hand raised. He finally realized it was a bad idea to begin with and had to let it go. In short, he had no idea what he was talking about during his campaign and only after he took office did he realize things are, sometimes, exactly as they seem.

It would have taken Congressional action to close the entire naval base, but that has never been under discussion.

As far as having Congressional approval is concerned, many people forget he had a substantial majority in the US House and one vote short of a super-majority in the Senate for the first two years of his presidency. All he really had to do was take the bit in his teeth and Nancy and Harry would have walked on hot coals to satisfy him.

He simply did not then, and does not now, have the leadership or management skills to get the job done.

[SteeleJoe]

Gennifer Flowers wouldn't let Bill Clinton tie her up in a sex game with Bill playing sadist although he let her tie him up so he could play masochist.

Perhaps the reason he married her was he was a masochist.

Psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel explains. Bill's masochistic impulses are more covert then his sadism in his public sexual life and also in his political life.

Gennifer Flowers felt intimidated and frightened 1992, Gennifer said, "I could have been killed." Bill got the blame for it but I think she was really afraid of Hillary.

Hillary as sadist and Bill as masochist would explain the marriage. Apparently Bill referred to her as the Dragon.

Mark, Mark, Mark... plagiarizing again? And by (dishonestly) taking something out of context, you've made yourself look pretty foolish: Otto Fenichel died a few months before Clinton was even born.

EDITED for Typos

Edited April 6, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[mark45y]

Gennifer Flowers wouldn't let Bill Clinton tie her up in a sex game with Bill playing sadist although he let her tie him up so he could play masochist.

Perhaps the reason he married her was he was a masochist.

Psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel explains. Bill's masochistic impulses are more covert then his sadism in his public sexual life and also in his political life.

Gennifer Flowers felt intimidated and frightened 1992, Gennifer said, "I could have been killed." Bill got the blame for it but I think she was really afraid of Hillary.

Hillary as sadist and Bill as masochist would explain the marriage. Apparently Bill referred to her as the Dragon.

Mark, Mark, Mark... plagiarizing again? And by (dishonestly) taking something out of context, you've made yourself look pretty foolish: Otto Fenichel died a few months before Clinton was even born.

EDITED for Typos

It is nice having a personal fact checker. I pulled the quote from some psychological profile of Bill Clinton. Are you now writing rules for posting? When you list a persons name before a quote is that plagiarism?

Simple to check google "psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel explains. Bill's masochistic impulses are more covert then his sadism in his public sexual life"

You will find a number of references.

In case you didn't know it, on Thai Visa you can't paste whole articles so one must cut and past at most three sentences.

I realize you are checking everything I write for accuracy and spending quite a bit of time to critique me. It is OK with me. Are you one of my ex wives?

[SteeleJoe]

Mark:

You pulled the quote from this this. It's less a psychological profile than some guy's agenda fueled speculation. (And what a source: 68 year old psychiatrist who gets charged with trading illegally prescribed drug to his patients in exchange for sex and charging it to the state. )

Writing rules for posting? No. What I am doing is pointing out what is a dishonest and shoddy means of making an argument . And you didn't "list a persons name before quoting", you lifted a passage of someone else's work and presented it as your own. And so out of conterxt as to twist its original meaning.

I'm not spending much time at all. 1) It was obviously not your own writing 2) I was curious where and when Fenichel commented on Bill Clinton and 3) As you say, it's easy to find this stuff (yeah,a number of references – it's the same source over and over again).

Are you sure youcan't C&P more than 3 sentences at a time? Even if that's the case, one merely has to use quotation marks/and or say something like "According to…" and perhaps provide a link. Or else, actually use your own ideas and your own words.

But presenting something as your own when it's not, and doing it so clumsily (twice in 2 days)…well, you can't complain if it arouses some criticism.

EDIT for typo

Edited April 6, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[mark45y]

Mark:

You pulled the quote from this this. It's less a psychological profile than some guy's agenda fueled speculation. (And what a source: 68 year old psychiatrist who gets charged with trading illegally prescribed drug to his patients in exchange for sex and charging it to the state. )

Writing rules for posting? No. What I am doing is pointing out what is a dishonest and shoddy means of making an argument . And you didn't "list a persons name before quoting", you lifted a passage of someone else's work and presented it as your own. And so out of conterxt as to twist its original meaning.

I'm not spending much time at all. 1) It was obviously not your own writing 2) I was curious where and when Fenichel commented on Bill Clinton and 3) As you say, it's easy to find this stuff (yeah,a number of references – it's the same source over and over again).

Are you sure youcan't C&P more than 3 sentences at a time? Even if that's the case, one merely has to use quotation marks/and or say something like "According to…" and perhaps provide a link. Or else, actually use your own ideas and your own words.

But presenting something as your own when it's not, and doing it so clumsily (twice in 2 days)…well, you can't complain if it arouses some criticism.

EDIT for typo

Not where I got the quote but not a big issue. This is not the only thread where you are trying to start an argument with me. I don't know why but you have not been on Thai Visa long so I won't go into it. The only way I know how to respond to a personal vendetta is not to respond. Me responding to you would take the thread off topic. Try dealing with what I write instead of how I write it or if you don't like me personally.

If you want to critique my writing style or spelling or some other facet of how I present information I will not respond. If you want to debate the information presented, provided it is on topic fine. If you want to call me dishonest or shoddy I will not respond. If you want to disagree with whatever idea it is that you find dishonest or shoddy feel free to do so. If you want to start a feud pick some one else because I will not take the content of a thread off on a personal defense or attack.

[SteeleJoe]

Not where you got the qoute? I apologize for my error. But it is the original source of the qoute, nonetheless. Yes?

Look man, no vendetta. I respond to posts that I think I have a worthy response to -- regardless of who writes them. I certainly haven't replied to all of yours or anywhere near it.

I have ONLYspoken of what you write. I've not made ANY comments about not liking you personally. All that I have discussed was the information (including its veracity or how its presented).

You needn't defend yourself because it's not about you (I don't know you – you are probably a perfectly nice guy.You seem to be). You may, however, want to defend your posts if you think they can be legitimately defended. (And that doesn't mean claiming that I'm doing things that I'm not.)

Believe it or not, I don't want a personal argument or to take things off topic. You say things, I comment on them and then you keep digging holes deeper and deeper.Why is it OK for you to reply to me but not for me to reply to you?

Enough said?

EDITED FOR TYPOS

Edited April 6, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[trisailer]

Obama has been a dissapointment to me, but he has accomplished a lot and I don't even want to think where we would be if McCain/Palin would have won. Whoever his opponent will be they will likely have ties to the teabaggers, the worse movement to arise since McCarthy. The result will no doubt be determined by the amount of money spent to persuade the American sheeple who have not already made up their minds. If the economy improves and unemployment declines than Obama will win and so we can expect that the republicans will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. Never underestimate the ability of American's to vote against their own self interest.

[SteeleJoe]

Obama has been a dissapointment to me, but he has accomplished a lot and I don't even want to think where we would be if McCain/Palin would have won. Whoever his opponent will be they will likely have ties to the teabaggers, the worse movement to arise since McCarthy. The result will no doubt be determined by the amount of money spent to persuade the American sheeple who have not already made up their minds. If the economy improves and unemployment declines than Obama will win and so we can expect that the republicans will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. Never underestimate the ability of American's to vote against their own self interest.

Nice one.

[Steely Dan]

Obama has been a dissapointment to me, but he has accomplished a lot and I don't even want to think where we would be if McCain/Palin would have won. Whoever his opponent will be they will likely have ties to the teabaggers, the worse movement to arise since McCarthy. The result will no doubt be determined by the amount of money spent to persuade the American sheeple who have not already made up their minds. If the economy improves and unemployment declines than Obama will win and so we can expect that the republicans will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. Never underestimate the ability of American's to vote against their own self interest.

The electoral cycle is all important, you can clearly see it at work with the stock market, the idea being to create a boom to coincide with election day then pay down the resulting debt during the first two to three years after being re-elected. Thr trouble is the debt never actually gets paid off and increases until the burden of it collapses the ecomomy completely.

[WarpSpeed]

I blame the American people for being uneducated about their own self interest.

See we do agree on politics. Which is why he should have never been voted into office on the first place. Personally I myself have more management and business experience then he does and we're virtually the same age, the major difference between us is I have integrity and I don't have any owners..

But you weren't on the ballot as far as I know.

The only real option was Mr Obama or McCain/Palin -- which you keep leaving out of the equation. it's not simply a matter of not voting for Obama, it's matter of electing his opponents, but you've yet to state that they were more honest and/or otherwise qualified. That's fine, the thread isn't about rehashing that election. But if you keep insisting that one shouldn't have voted for Obama, then you are ultimately saying we should have chosen the other guys...but your lack of support for that is conspicuous in its absence.

I haven't left it out of the equation, for most analytical and thinking people McCain was by far the better choice in that regard. It's only because he attached his horse to Palin and people couldn't get past her part of the ticket that he was disqualified of sorts but still the better choice in all aspects though as he spoke the hard truths no one wanted face frankly, honestly and with years of experience and no one wanted to hear nor face the fact that Obama was not speaking with the same breadth of experience..

Edited April 6, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[WarpSpeed]

Obama has been a dissapointment to me, but he has accomplished a lot

I agree completely, he has accomplished the largest debt in American history.. That's a lot ..

[WarpSpeed]

He's a likable fellow and clearly very intelligent. I think he lacks a mysterious ingredient that makes for a great leader (as opposed to a great campaigner/speech giver). I didn't see it in his campaign either, which is why I supported Hillary, who I do believe has the right stuff.

Hmm... there's a fellow American here on board who knows and met her and doesn't agree with you. He was terrified of her. He called her a very dangerous woman...

FWIW

LaoPo

Why do you think Bill's still married to her ??

Gennifer Flowers wouldn't let Bill Clinton tie her up in a sex game with Bill playing sadist although he let her tie him up so he could play masochist.

Perhaps the reason he married her was he was a masochist.

Psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel explains. Bill's masochistic impulses are more covert then his sadism in his public sexual life and also in his political life.

Gennifer Flowers felt intimidated and frightened 1992, Gennifer said, "I could have been killed.” Bill got the blame for it but I think she was really afraid of Hillary.

Hillary as sadist and Bill as masochist would explain the marriage. Apparently Bill referred to her as the Dragon.

Men in extreme power positions often choose the submissive route when in private as it liberates them of their daily lives and stresses..

[WarpSpeed]

I blame the American people for being uneducated about their own self interest.

See we do agree on politics. Which is why he should have never been voted into office on the first place. Personally I myself have more management and business experience then he does and we're virtually the same age, the major difference between us is I have integrity and I don't have any owners..

But you weren't on the ballot as far as I know.

Hmmmm nice argument, being intentionally obtuse or does it come naturally??