President Obama launches re-election campaign

[LaoPo]

A lot of right wingers posting here. Interesting.

Nope just because I don't like this poser as POTUS doesn't make me right wing, I'm about as centrist as one can get..

But you have come out as a birther. That's right wing. So basically I am sure I would disagree about your politics.

No you've labeled me as birther, quite a different matter..

That's what's so interesting with TV; I didn't know the slang word "birther" but Google is my friend...so:

"a person who believes - against evidence - that Barack Obama was born outside of the United States."

So-called "birthers" - who claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they argue, he was actually born outside the United States - have grown more vocal recently on blogs and television news shows.

-- Hawaii Asserts Obama's U.S. Citizenship, AP, Jaymes Song, Jul. 28, 2009

From: http://onlineslangdictionary.com/definition+of/birther

But, I wasn't the only one who didn't learn yet about the slang word "birther": 52% didn't know.

Thanks chaps!

LaoPo

[Jingthing]

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.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Jingthing

[LaoPo]

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

[SteeleJoe]

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

My judgement is still somewhat held in reserve about Mr Obama (and that tells you something right there) but the above pretty much sums up my own take.

[SteeleJoe]

A lot of right wingers posting here. Interesting.

Also a lot of assumptions......

I for one am not interested in either party....right wing...left wing....same corrupt bird

Look at the major campaign contributors for both & see for yourself.

It is only the illusion of choice that you assume when playing the right vs left card

yes .... for example was he even entitled to run in the first place ?

" Arizona is now introducing a bill (HB 2544) that would require Obama and any other candidate vying for the presidency, to produce a birth certificate in order to run in 2012. Should this bill pass, Obama will have no choice, but produce his actual birth certificate for his name to appear on the Arizona ballot. If other red states follow suit, the problem will compound itself, because if Obama cannot produce the birth certificate, his critics could possibly conclude that he was never eligible to begin with, therefore any bill that was passed or executive order signed by Obama during his presidency becomes null and void. "

http://newscastmedia...head-yet-again/

because i have a sneaky feeling this will be a BIG issue this

time around

FORMER ELECTION OFFICIAL WILL TESTIFY THAT OBAMA WAS NOT BORN IN HAWAII

http://www.libertyne...e_301_28982.php

If Obama's critics conclude that he was never eligible to begin with any bill that was passed or executive order signed by Obama during his presidency becomes null and void?

Man, that's dumb.

[LaoPo]

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

[SteeleJoe]

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

Heh. He knows her and met her too? Wow! (As opposed to not meeting her but knowing her?)

But why would I give this person's views any more credence than my own? One American who is anti-Hilary. There's millions of those. What does this guy know that would carry any more weight than all of them?

And Jeez -- "terrified"?! That's pretty impressive.

[Jingthing]

I didn't say I wanted to hang out with her.

[LaoPo]

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

Heh. He knows her and met her too? Wow! (As opposed to not meeting her but knowing her?)

But why would I give this person's views any more credence than my own? One American who is anti-Hilary. There's millions of those. What does this guy know that would carry any more weight than all of them?

And Jeez -- "terrified"?! That's pretty impressive.

It's so nice to be corrected by someone who's better in English than me. Thank you ....I feel sooo relieved and learnt something today, again

Terrified....yes I think so too. But wait a little..he will show up, no doubt; he knows better than me.

LaoPo

[SteeleJoe]

Sorry, wasn't correcting your English -- just having fun with a minor oversight (sometimes I'm easily amused - especially at 2:30AM). No offense intended.

[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

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

[SteeleJoe]

Huh, of all people -- good old Mark! You're always forthcoming with answers so I hope you don't mind satisfying my curiosity:

You know her?

Bill told you he was scared of her?

Why did she terrify you?

[Steely Dan]

Only got a few posts into this thread before it wore me out but I can't help but comment on this...

I never fail to be surprised at how widely believed that easily debunked canard is. It's late so rather than get into any lengthy (off topic) breakdown I'll keep it simple:

The Taliban didn't exist in 1978 -- and wouldn't for another 12 - 13 years. (Nor did the US fight in Afghanistan then, for that matter -- we didn't even get involved at all until almost 2 years after that, and we certainly weren't fighting.

Ok, my bad, but let's break thing down into a chain of cause and effect if you want to revisit this in detail.

December 1979 is when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, which they did to support a Marxist puppet government against Afghan Mujahideen. A proxy war followed with the U.S, U.K and Saudi Arabia amongst others supporting said Mujahideen. In 1989 the Soviets finally withdrew. By 1996 the Taliban had taken over large areas of Afghanistan and this was made indirectly possible due to the arming and supporting of militants fighting the Russians. Now post 9/11 it's the U.S and Nato who are fighting the same interminable seemingly unwinnable battle to control Afghanistan, no doubt to the considerable shadenfreude on the part of Russia.

Fast forward to 2011 and the U.S is again embroiled supporting an uprising in an Arab Country, Libya, who by numbers are the second largest contributor to the Taliban fighting against Nato in Afghanistan. The U.S also called for the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt which has very likely resulted in a fledgling Islamic theocracy taking root there, so much for the billions of dollars aid thrown at Egypt over the years.

Returning to topic Obama's middle eastern policy has been a disaster, in addition to a theocracy in Egypt, civil war in Libya we have a big fall out with Saudi Arabia who feel sufficiently threatened by an emboldened (appeased) Iran that they took unilateral action in Bahrain and may yet come to blows with Iran seriously threatening much of the world's oil supply in the process.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Steely Dan

[flying]

Returning to topic Obama's middle eastern policy has been a disaster, in addition to a theocracy in Egypt, civil war in Libya we have a big fall out with Saudi Arabia who feel sufficiently threatened by an emboldened (appeased) Iran that they took unilateral action in Bahrain and may yet come to blows with Iran seriously threatening much of the world's oil supply in the process.

Yeah that whole area is not looking too stable these days.

We ( The US ) would do well to just bud out of all of it.

Edited April 6, 2011 by flying

[SteeleJoe]

December 1979 is when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, which they did to support a Marxist puppet government against Afghan Mujahideen. A proxy war followed with the U.S, U.K and Saudi Arabia amongst others supporting said Mujahideen. In 1989 the Soviets finally withdrew.

Coincidentally, I know a fair bit about this so no need for the breakdown, but thanks.

The Taliban is not the mujahadeen. You saying "By 1996..." makes it sound like the Muj just carried on and were one and the same as the Taliban. It's just not so.

And to whatever extent the takeover by the Taliban (not the Muj), was "made indirectly possible due to the arming and supporting of militants fighting the Russians" that does not equate in any way shape of form to the US fighting alongside the Taliban in 1978 -- or ever.

Sorry, no offense but you were flat out wrong. But the only reason I commented is because I've heard that same thing from so many otherwise reasonable and smart folks (like yorself, no doubt).

Returning to topic Obama's middle eastern policy has been a disaster, in addition to a theocracy in Egypt, civil war in Libya we have a big fall out with Saudi Arabia who feel sufficiently threatened by an emboldened (appeased) Iran that they took unilateral action in Bahrain and may yet come to blows with Iran seriously threatening much of the world's oil supply in the process.

Obama caused the overthrow of Mubarak and now there's a theocracy there? (I've never underestimated the Muslim Brotherhood or their various offshoots etal but I didn't know they worked that fast! And I had no idea that our cosy relationship with Mubarak since Reagan and Mubarak's own actions etc had little or nothing to do with what has happened there and it's in fact because of President Obama's foreign policy.)

He caused the civil war in Libya too?

Wow -- that is a disaster!

As for the Suadis...oh, how I wish we could and would just tell them to go f themselves.

[mark45y]

Huh, of all people -- good old Mark! You're always forthcoming with answers so I hope you don't mind satisfying my curiosity:

You know her?

Bill told you he was scared of her?

Why did she terrify you?

Knew her a long time ago would be accurate. Arkansas, Bill was Attorney General and she worked for the Rose law firm. Bill was a hunting buddy of a relative of mine and a frequent patron of my club in Little Rock. Later I met the Professor who graded her Senior thesis and he became a friend of mine.

For those who don't know, Arkansas was a very wide open state including horse racing, gambling, ladies, after hours clubs and almost anything else you can think of. Hot Springs where Bill was born boasted vacation homes of many mobsters including Al Capone.

Most of the stuff is a matter of public record.

She is a formidable woman possessed of no great intelligence but drive and great determination.

I would not want her pissed of at me. She never forgets.

Bill is hard not to like in almost any circumstance. Hillary for me is the opposite. How they ever got together is beyond me. If you have met them together they really do seem an odd couple. Bill is a good old boy who happens to be brilliant. Hilly is a Dowdy Chicago feminist liberal who has the persistence of a bull dog. Bill would have been at home in Clinton Square in Bangkok. Hillary Rodham? Hardly.

It is just a personality thing. Hillary represents most of the things in a person I don't like, Bill exactly the opposite.

[geriatrickid]

3. Guantanamo: intereresting to learn he is/was able to close it but was there a solution for the detainees ? were there enough states in the US who would have them?; how many other world countries offered their help? Not many.

As I understand it, there was no other option, so it stays open.

If I'm wrong, please explain but leave some space for others' opinions, OK?

LaoPo

Can't send them to the US that places them on American soil and convolutes their legal status same for sending them abroad, their in lies a big part of his deception or ignorance for which he so vehemently misspoke ..

The obstacle to the closure ws that foreign countries did not want these people back. The detainees also claimed that if they were repatraited to their countries they would be tortured or killed. And in the case of several detainees that were released they went back to terrorism.

[geriatrickid]

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.

[SteeleJoe]

It is just a personality thing. Hillary represents most of the things in a person I don't like, Bill exactly the opposite.

Thanks Mark.

Not all that confident in the accuracy of your assessment of Mrs. Clinton, but fair enough (it's largely subjectibe anyway, no?) -- so are you typically terrified of people who represent things in a person you don't like?

And how is that you know Bill is scared of her?

[koheesti]

December 1979 is when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, which they did to support a Marxist puppet government against Afghan Mujahideen. A proxy war followed with the U.S, U.K and Saudi Arabia amongst others supporting said Mujahideen. In 1989 the Soviets finally withdrew.

Coincidentally, I know a fair bit about this so no need for the breakdown, but thanks.

The Taliban is not the mujahadeen. You saying "By 1996..." makes it sound like the Muj just carried on and were one and the same as the Taliban. It's just not so.

I first heard of the Taleban in about 95-96. I remember the news report of a "student army", tired of the corruption, making advances toward the capital. I also remember thinking it sounded like a good thing. Whoops. That's why I worry about the "protesters" and "rebels" against Mubarak and Ghaddafi. The people we are backing today are very likely going to be our enemy before we know it.

[SteeleJoe]

December 1979 is when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, which they did to support a Marxist puppet government against Afghan Mujahideen. A proxy war followed with the U.S, U.K and Saudi Arabia amongst others supporting said Mujahideen. In 1989 the Soviets finally withdrew.

Coincidentally, I know a fair bit about this so no need for the breakdown, but thanks.

The Taliban is not the mujahadeen. You saying "By 1996..." makes it sound like the Muj just carried on and were one and the same as the Taliban. It's just not so.

I first heard of the Taleban in about 95-96. I remember the news report of a "student army", tired of the corruption, making advances toward the capital. I also remember thinking it sounded like a good thing. Whoops. That's why I worry about the "protesters" and "rebels" against Mubarak and Ghaddafi. The people we are backing today are very likely going to be our enemy before we know it.

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

Edited April 6, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[mark45y]

It is just a personality thing. Hillary represents most of the things in a person I don't like, Bill exactly the opposite.

Thanks Mark.

Not all that confident in the accuracy of your assessment of Mrs. Clinton, but fair enough (it's largely subjectibe anyway, no?) -- so are you typically terrified of people who represent things in a person you don't like?

And how is that you know Bill is scared of her?

Hillary was never a big hit in Arkansas. When she was introduced using her middle name the Arkansas ladies rolled their eyes. Bill had a lot of other choices and took them frequently. Yet he stayed with her. 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.

I was frankly surprised that she didn't beat Obama. The only thing I can think that happened is a lot of other people had the same gut feeling I have about the woman.

[midas]

That's what's so interesting with TV; I didn't know the slang word "birther" but Google is my friend...so:

"a person who believes - against evidence - that Barack Obama was born outside of the United States."

LaoPo

I'm not a birther but that definition is crap. "against evidence"? The whole point of the birthers is that they are asking to see the evidence. NOT a modern day generic document from the Dem-controlled Hawaii state gov't, but the ORIGINAL birth certificate. As for me, I'm satisfied by the newspaper accounts of the day listing his birth. If he had been born all the way over in Kenya it would not have been in the Hawaii newspaper. Not in 1961 it wouldn't have. Assuming of course he was really born in 1961.

yes and why is too much to ask for ?

Those that don't support his policies can quite rightly ask such questions as

how honest the American government truly is to its people and who is the Obama administration

and the government really working for?

Well people found the answer to that in 2008

.......and any evidence to the contrary is bound to fan the flames

Edited April 6, 2011 by midas

[SteeleJoe]

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.

[WarpSpeed]

Nope just because I don't like this poser as POTUS doesn't make me right wing, I'm about as centrist as one can get..

But you have come out as a birther. That's right wing. So basically I am sure I would disagree about your politics.

No you've labeled me as birther, quite a different matter..

Fine, you're not a birther, whatever you say, but you just wrote a post about how you care about the issue of Obama's birth certificate. More reality based Americans care about REAL issues, like war and peace, health care, taxes, education, civil rights, unemployment, foreign policy, etc.

Next ...

That's because most so called "reality" based Americans (one of which I am more so then most) are blinkered to the more important issue of honesty and integrity which also speaks to his election promises in the first place and the current disgust at his ineptness since being elected... I do care and rightfully so, I'm an American citizen and as such have the right to know, doesn't make me any kind of birther who consider him to be illegal based on the information on his birth certificate..

Do you consider it acceptable for any candidate to potentially lie and deceive you to gain their office?? They do it enough already, doesn't mean we have to be accepting. That's as bad as accepting corruption as a way of life regardless of whether or not you have much control over it so therefore condone it and have a blinkered,head in the sand, jai yen yen attitude about it..

Edited April 6, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[WarpSpeed]

A lot of right wingers posting here. Interesting.

Nope just because I don't like this poser as POTUS doesn't make me right wing, I'm about as centrist as one can get..

But you have come out as a birther. That's right wing. So basically I am sure I would disagree about your politics.

No, wrong presumptions again, I'm a realist who is tired of people accepting dishonest politicians lying whenever it suits their needs.. I couldn't give a toss either way if you agree with my politics or not. I was right in 2010 not to vote for this deceitful POTUS seeing very well through him way back then, now don't you feel the naive fool if you voted for him? You should and NOT repeat the same mistake twice unless you're one of those who keeps pounding his head against the wall expecting to knock it down only to split your skull in the process..

[WarpSpeed]

Funny, the remarks about Obama by some of our esteemed American members; now I don't hear them about America bashing what would be considered as America Bashing if a non-American would write something negative about Obama.

.

I better refrain, although I have to say I was very enthousaistic about Obama when he took Office (but so were many American members on TV) but that his track record is not very impressive.

On the other hand, it must not be very easy for a Democratic President if he doesn't control the voting majority anymore.

Take Guantanamo: could he have closed it as he promised before taking Office ?

I mean...would he... IF he had a majority voting control ?

Curious; not bashing

LaoPo

No bashing, but he had a majority for his first 2 years and that's when he promised it would be closed anyway as well as many of his other empty promises that were supposed to be accomplished in his first 2 years.. He lost his majority due to his poor record, double speak and back stepping..

Edit: I see now I almost echoed Chuck verbatim..

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

Because as I said earlier he was naive as to the processes and legalities involved and once his eyes were opened found out it wasn't as easy as he anticipated and promised..

Edited April 6, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[SteeleJoe]

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.

Edited April 6, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[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..

[flying]

The President needed agreement from the US Congress

Like Libya?