Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tanner... investigative hearings are inherently political. Every.Single.One.Of.Them.

 Frazzled wrote:
If that were true and not because millions have left the workplace, we wouldn't have 40% inner city unemployment, 11 % under employment, and Trump/Sanders popularity.

First up, your economics are gibberish. You've claimed unemployment is down because of drop outs from the economy, and tour proof is localised unemployment rate. Apparently national unemployment can be lowered through declining participation, but a local rates remain high because frazzled magic is a powerful and wondrous thing.

Second up, you've made the #1 cable news economics pundit mistake - assuming any national economic movement must be related to direct political management. Except ananlysts have been forecasting this decline in participation for decades, not because they knew of the rise of socialist rule of Obama, but because demographics are easy and known years ahead of time. The baby boomers are retiring. There is now 10 million more people over 65 than there was 8 years. The impact on participation has been exactly what was expected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Romney lost.

Uh yeah, that's the point of my post. He lost, what he promised happened anyway, showing his policies weren't needed to achieve those economic results.

This should demonstrate to people that you don't need harsh economic inequality to achieve growth, but it turns out the suckers want to keep being fooled.

As to Obama/Clinton and history.
Obama will be known as the first black President. Almost nothing else will matter to historians.

Yeah, in the same way that all Washington is remembered for is being the first president, and Kennedy is remembered for being the first Catholic president.

 whembly wrote:
Tanner... investigative hearings are inherently political. Every.Single.One.Of.Them.

Yeah, in all fairness the system is actually designed to be pretty dysfunctional. Kind of the point of checks and balances. Now, whether the actions of any particular Congress are desirable or effective (or not) is a voter issue. Keep in mind that almost every one of the Congressmen is trying to get re-elected and that spurs their actions. Actions that win political points in their home districts and states will encourage more of that behavior. It is a big part of the national polarization. Since Obama and Clinton are unpopular in Republican leaning areas, guess what happens next? You got it, lots of political theater against them; sound and fury signifying nothing.

Did it pay off? I guess we will see.

Yeah, in the same way that all Washington is remembered for is being the first president, and Kennedy is remembered for being the first Catholic president.

I am not surprised, an Australian would say that, not being versed in what the impact of being the first black President (or more precisely the first biracial) President means. Thats ok.

400 years of oppression comes full circle with hope in Obama. Wars, Jim Crow, the rise and fall of the Klan, the lynching of thousands, dozens to hundreds of bombings and burnings come full circle to a moment dreamed of by an entire race of people. Hundreds of thousands died to free them from bondage. Tens of thousands died in the struggles they endured to stand up under oppression and raise their heads as equals. Obama's election is a watershed event, a nexus point, a point of freedom.


But please keep telling us how thats not the important part. What the feth ever.

 sebster wrote:


Yeah, in the same way that all Washington is remembered for is being the first president, and Kennedy is remembered for being the first Catholic president.

Kennedy is only known for nailing Marilyn Monroe. And for claiming to be a donut. And maybe that thing in Cuba. Also his Texas convertible tour.

 Frazzled wrote:

What makes it funny is that Romney's 2012 campaign was run on his magical economic mojo - in which he promised job creation and growth figures... that was already exactly what the CBO was projecting.

Romney lost.


As to Obama/Clinton and history.
Obama will be known as the first black President. Almost nothing else will matter to historians. Take this away:
*He will be noted as President during the Great Recession and Recovery, which will be viewed as a positive. He will also be noted for the negatives of Libya and Syria, and potentially being President when the seeds of the next great war are shown (China's expansion into the Pacific).

Oh, for God's sake, turn off the Fox News channel, will you! Wait, I'm sorry, maybe those were Oxy Limbaugh rantings you were regurgitating?
Libya...the conservative dead horse of choice. Let's see, a maniacal despot who used his state to sponsor terrorist acts and suppressed opposition in the most heinous of ways was overthrown. Yeah, that's a H-U-G-E negative. The world is certainly going to miss Gaddafi! Don't bother bringing up Benghazi, it's a tragedy, to be sure, but one that happened when the country was in a state of lawlessness as armed groups fought for control and I'm sorry to say but the witch hunt is over, finally, after having been proven to be nothing more than the taxpayer funds burning gak bag that it was. Some times bad things happen in bad places.
Syria...give me a break. Historical drought drives huge swaths of desperate citizens from the rural countryside to the urban areas to look for employment. None found. Dissention erupts as pent up rage against...wait for it...another maniacal despot, who used his state to sponsor terrorist acts and suppressed opposition in the most heinous of ways which leads to outright civil war that then turns into a proxy fight between Iran and Saudi Arabia. I see Obama's fingerprints all over this...
Both, btw, part of a regional phenomenon...probably Obama's fault by your twerked perspective...of Arab Spring.
The China comment is just unbelievable. Gee, a new superpower flexing it's muscle. There's a geopolitical paradigm shift for the scholars to study. Let's see, in review of one of your previous China bashing posts, is the statement that we shouldn't even trade with China Yes, let's continue to pretend we can unilaterally influence everything in the world, bend it all to our will and tell the "bad" guys that it's our way or the highway. I'm sure Europe, Russia, South America and everybody else that manufactures or sells anything would send us a thank you basket for the immediate, easy access to a rapidly growing market of 1.5 billion consumers. That will definitely help us out and our standing in the world. It'll certainly show China!

 jmurph wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Tanner... investigative hearings are inherently political. Every.Single.One.Of.Them.

Yeah, in all fairness the system is actually designed to be pretty dysfunctional. Kind of the point of checks and balances. Now, whether the actions of any particular Congress are desirable or effective (or not) is a voter issue. Keep in mind that almost every one of the Congressmen is trying to get re-elected and that spurs their actions. Actions that win political points in their home districts and states will encourage more of that behavior. It is a big part of the national polarization. Since Obama and Clinton are unpopular in Republican leaning areas, guess what happens next? You got it, lots of political theater against them; sound and fury signifying nothing.

Did it pay off? I guess we will see.

Exactly.

It remains to be seen if it pays off... as, GOP is in real danger of losing the Senate.

 whembly wrote:
Tanner... investigative hearings are inherently political. Every.Single.One.Of.Them.

Did I say political? Why, no, no I did not. I said partisan. There is a difference.

Oh, for God's sake, turn off the Fox News channel, will you! Wait, I'm sorry, maybe those were Oxy Limbaugh rantings you were regurgitating?
****I don't watch Fox News. Limbaugh? The radio guy?


Libya...the conservative dead horse of choice. Let's see, a maniacal despot who used his state to sponsor terrorist acts and suppressed opposition in the most heinous of ways was overthrown. Yeah, that's a H-U-G-E negative.
****But you blame Bush for Iraq as a bad war right?
****Libya is a major clusterfeth now.

The world is certainly going to miss Gaddafi!
***Yes actually. Look whats happened since.

Don't bother bringing up Benghazi, it's a tragedy, to be sure, but one that happened when the country was in a state of lawlessness as armed groups fought for control and I'm sorry to say but the witch hunt is over,
***I didn't bring up Benghazi. You did. I said nothing about it. I said Libya. Benghazi was an event. Libya was policy.

Syria...give me a break.
***Yep, Syria. They've helped make a bad situation worse. His redline comment showed the powers there that we are not reliable. Support for parties involved have done nothing but potentially create terrorist groups like ISIL. Did you note last week how rebels we were supported forced a special forces out, declaiming how thy would kill them?

Both, btw, part of a regional phenomenon...probably Obama's fault by your twerked perspective...of Arab Spring.
***Good point. I forgot about his complete anti-support for the Green Revolution in Iran.

The China comment is just unbelievable.
***Really? Lets revisit. The seeds of the next war are there now. . I didn't even say we would be involved. I agree its a new superpower flexing its muscle. I didn't blame Obama. His original intent was to refocus on Asia and and the expanding China(remember???). I noted he would be seen as President when that started.


Gee, a new superpower flexing it's muscle. There's a geopolitical paradigm shift for the scholars to study. Let's see, in review of one of your previous China bashing post, is the statement that we shouldn't even trade with China Yes, let's continue to pretend we can unilaterally influence everything in the world, bend it all to our will and tell the "bad" guys that it's our way or the highway. I'm sure Europe, Russia, South America and everybody else that manufactures or sells anything would send us a thank you basket for the immediate, easy access to a rapidly growing market of 1.5 billion consumers. That will definitely help us out and our standing in the world. It'll certainly show China!
***You kind of went ranty there. Do you need a tic tac?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Tanner... investigative hearings are inherently political. Every.Single.One.Of.Them.

Did I say political? Why, no, no I did not. I said partisan. There is a difference.

It's naive to expect a lack of partisanship in Congress.

It's always been this way.

The only recourse, if a party steps out of bound, is to simply vote for the other guy.

 Frazzled wrote:


I am not surprised, an Australian would say that, not being versed in what the impact of being the first black President (or more precisely the first biracial) President means. Thats ok.

400 years of oppression comes full circle with hope in Obama. Wars, Jim Crow, the rise and fall of the Klan, the lynching of thousands, dozens to hundreds of bombings and burnings come full circle to a moment dreamed of by an entire race of people. Hundreds of thousands died to free them from bondage. Tens of thousands died in the struggles they endured to stand up under oppression and raise their heads as equals. Obama's election is a watershed event, a nexus point, a point of freedom.

.

..might wanna mention that to the current Republican party nominee for the office of POTUS.

he and his supporters don't seem to quite agree with you here.

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


I am not surprised, an Australian would say that, not being versed in what the impact of being the first black President (or more precisely the first biracial) President means. Thats ok.

400 years of oppression comes full circle with hope in Obama. Wars, Jim Crow, the rise and fall of the Klan, the lynching of thousands, dozens to hundreds of bombings and burnings come full circle to a moment dreamed of by an entire race of people. Hundreds of thousands died to free them from bondage. Tens of thousands died in the struggles they endured to stand up under oppression and raise their heads as equals. Obama's election is a watershed event, a nexus point, a point of freedom.

.

..might wanna mention that to the current Republican party nominee for the office of POTUS.

he and his supporters don't seem to quite agree with you here.

Thats why they are "Deplorables. "

 Frazzled wrote:

Oh, for God's sake, turn off the Fox News channel, will you! Wait, I'm sorry, maybe those were Oxy Limbaugh rantings you were regurgitating?
****I don't watch Fox News. Limbaugh? The radio guy?


Libya...the conservative dead horse of choice. Let's see, a maniacal despot who used his state to sponsor terrorist acts and suppressed opposition in the most heinous of ways was overthrown. Yeah, that's a H-U-G-E negative.
****But you blame Bush for Iraq as a bad war right?
****Libya is a major clusterfeth now.

The world is certainly going to miss Gaddafi!
***Yes actually. Look whats happened since.

Don't bother bringing up Benghazi, it's a tragedy, to be sure, but one that happened when the country was in a state of lawlessness as armed groups fought for control and I'm sorry to say but the witch hunt is over,
***I didn't bring up Benghazi. You did. I said nothing about it. I said Libya. Benghazi was an event. Libya was policy.

Syria...give me a break.
***Yep, Syria. They've helped make a bad situation worse. His redline comment showed the powers there that we are not reliable. Support for parties involved have done nothing but potentially create terrorist groups like ISIL. Did you note last week how rebels we were supported forced a special forces out, declaiming how thy would kill them?

Both, btw, part of a regional phenomenon...probably Obama's fault by your twerked perspective...of Arab Spring.
***Good point. I forgopt about his complete anti-support for the Green Revolution in Iran.

The China comment is just unbelievable.
***Really? Lets revisit. The seeds of the next war are there now. . I didn't even say we would be involved. I agree its a new superpower flexing its muscle. I didn't blame Obama. His original intent was to refocus on Asia and and the expanding China(remember???). I noted he would be seen as President when that started.


Gee, a new superpower flexing it's muscle. There's a geopolitical paradigm shift for the scholars to study. Let's see, in review of one of your previous China bashing post, is the statement that we shouldn't even trade with China Yes, let's continue to pretend we can unilaterally influence everything in the world, bend it all to our will and tell the "bad" guys that it's our way or the highway. I'm sure Europe, Russia, South America and everybody else that manufactures or sells anything would send us a thank you basket for the immediate, easy access to a rapidly growing market of 1.5 billion consumers. That will definitely help us out and our standing in the world. It'll certainly show China!
***You kind of went ranty there. Do you need a tic tac?

The entirety of your comments point to criticism that because "look at things now" being bad or worse. From whose perspective? Yours, apparently. Was there a set timetable that peace and stability should return in areas of the world that haven't seen anything but dictatorships for decades...or longer? Throw into that mix the concurrent rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the fact that entire region is morphing into a showdown between Iran/Saudi Arabia and their proxies, and it probably delays the evolution into the whole neat little package you seem to think these revolutions immediately become.
Arab Spring comment was a sad deflection, even for you.
As to the China inference that it's the "next war"...as you're so prescient, when exactly? Over what precisely? Nothing better than magic eight ball political commentary. You threw Obama into the China comment, don't walk away from it by claiming "I didn't blame him". You pointed to it being his watch, that infers responsibility.
As we're on the subject of China, Mandarin flavor Tic Tac please!

I'm on board with the 15 year argument. China is facing a major economic crisis in the next two decades, and it may very well drive war.

Any time a nation in their situation really starts ramping up their military capabilities... you need to take note of it.

 djones520 wrote:
I'm on board with the 15 year argument. China is facing a major economic crisis in the next two decades, and it may very well drive war.

Any time a nation in their situation really starts ramping up their military capabilities... you need to take note of it.

indeed, it might be prudent to follow the "get out of the way" portion of "lead, follow, or get out of the way."

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'm on board with the 15 year argument. China is facing a major economic crisis in the next two decades, and it may very well drive war.

Any time a nation in their situation really starts ramping up their military capabilities... you need to take note of it.

indeed, it might be prudent to follow the "get out of the way" portion of "lead, follow, or get out of the way."

It's likely that it won't even be us they throw down with. Japan, Vietnam, or Korea will be the more likely targets. We're going to be drawn in though. Our interests in that part of the world are to large.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'm on board with the 15 year argument. China is facing a major economic crisis in the next two decades, and it may very well drive war.

Any time a nation in their situation really starts ramping up their military capabilities... you need to take note of it.

indeed, it might be prudent to follow the "get out of the way" portion of "lead, follow, or get out of the way."

It's likely that it won't even be us they throw down with. Japan, Vietnam, or Korea will be the more likely targets. We're going to be drawn in though. Our interests in that part of the world are to large.

Only if we let ourselves be drawn in. Its a war we could lose, and badly (and thats assuming no nukes).

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Tanner... investigative hearings are inherently political. Every.Single.One.Of.Them.

Did I say political? Why, no, no I did not. I said partisan. There is a difference.

It's naive to expect a lack of partisanship in Congress.

It's always been this way.

Again you quote me, but respond to something I didn't actually say.

The only recourse, if a party steps out of bound, is to simply vote for the other guy.

A noble and idealistic sentiment, to be sure, and one I believe in. So, you going to vote for any other libertarians besides Johnson?

 whembly wrote:


The only recourse, if a party steps out of bound, is to simply vote for the other guy.

You should really, really follow your own advice and vote for the Hil-mon. Trump represents the "point of no return" for a sensible, not-awful Republican party.

Not Johnson/Stein. The Hils.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Tanner... investigative hearings are inherently political. Every.Single.One.Of.Them.

Did I say political? Why, no, no I did not. I said partisan. There is a difference.

It's naive to expect a lack of partisanship in Congress.

It's always been this way.

Again you quote me, but respond to something I didn't actually say.

You're trying to make a point that some investigative hearings are kosher and others not?

I'm arguing otherwise.

The only recourse, if a party steps out of bound, is to simply vote for the other guy.

A noble and idealistic sentiment, to be sure, and one I believe in. So, you going to vote for any other libertarians besides Johnson?

Yup... in my congressional district, Jim Higgins.

 djones520 wrote:
I'm on board with the 15 year argument. China is facing a major economic crisis in the next two decades, and it may very well drive war.

Any time a nation in their situation really starts ramping up their military capabilities... you need to take note of it.

They're also really ramping up their space program. It's like they're trying to catch up with everyone else on everything.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:


The only recourse, if a party steps out of bound, is to simply vote for the other guy.

You should really, really follow your own advice and vote for the Hil-mon. Trump represents the "point of no return" for a sensible, not-awful Republican party.

Not Johnson/Stein. The Hils.

Um... Hil-mon would continue Obama's policies...

No thanks.

 Frazzled wrote:

Spoiler:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Oh, for God's sake, turn off the Fox News channel, will you! Wait, I'm sorry, maybe those were Oxy Limbaugh rantings you were regurgitating?
****I don't watch Fox News. Limbaugh? The radio guy?


Libya...the conservative dead horse of choice. Let's see, a maniacal despot who used his state to sponsor terrorist acts and suppressed opposition in the most heinous of ways was overthrown. Yeah, that's a H-U-G-E negative.
****But you blame Bush for Iraq as a bad war right?
****Libya is a major clusterfeth now.

The world is certainly going to miss Gaddafi!
***Yes actually. Look whats happened since.

Don't bother bringing up Benghazi, it's a tragedy, to be sure, but one that happened when the country was in a state of lawlessness as armed groups fought for control and I'm sorry to say but the witch hunt is over,
***I didn't bring up Benghazi. You did. I said nothing about it. I said Libya. Benghazi was an event. Libya was policy.

Syria...give me a break.
***Yep, Syria. They've helped make a bad situation worse. His redline comment showed the powers there that we are not reliable. Support for parties involved have done nothing but potentially create terrorist groups like ISIL. Did you note last week how rebels we were supported forced a special forces out, declaiming how thy would kill them?

Both, btw, part of a regional phenomenon...probably Obama's fault by your twerked perspective...of Arab Spring.
***Good point. I forgopt about his complete anti-support for the Green Revolution in Iran.

The China comment is just unbelievable.
***Really? Lets revisit. The seeds of the next war are there now. . I didn't even say we would be involved. I agree its a new superpower flexing its muscle. I didn't blame Obama. His original intent was to refocus on Asia and and the expanding China(remember???). I noted he would be seen as President when that started.


Gee, a new superpower flexing it's muscle. There's a geopolitical paradigm shift for the scholars to study. Let's see, in review of one of your previous China bashing post, is the statement that we shouldn't even trade with China Yes, let's continue to pretend we can unilaterally influence everything in the world, bend it all to our will and tell the "bad" guys that it's our way or the highway. I'm sure Europe, Russia, South America and everybody else that manufactures or sells anything would send us a thank you basket for the immediate, easy access to a rapidly growing market of 1.5 billion consumers. That will definitely help us out and our standing in the world. It'll certainly show China!
***You kind of went ranty there. Do you need a tic tac?

The entirety of your comments point to criticism that because "look at things now" being bad or worse.
***Well yea thats what historians and retrospective analysis does. Thats why Eisenhower's and Nixon's standing has improved, and Wilson's standing fell a bit over time.


Was there a set timetable that peace and stability should return in areas of the world that haven't seen anything but dictatorships for decades...or longer?
***What timeline do you give Bush?

Throw into that mix the concurrent rise of Islamic fundamentalism and it probably delays the evolution into the whole neat little package you seem to think these revolutions immediately become.
***Well thats the idea. History will tell us how it worked out in the end. he will be judged on that. Right now its looking really really fethed up. But you could be right. It could turn out better int he future. But as the immortal bard once said: Its always darkest before it goes completely black. (That Mao, he's so dreamy...)

Arab Spring comment was a sad deflection, even for you.
***Um...no thats a major event in his Presidency that is ongoing.

As to the China inference that it's the "next war"...as you're so prescient, when exactly?
***within 15 years.

Over what precisely?
***Oil rights that the Chinese are taking, or potentially rights around Japanese waters.

Nothing better than magic eight ball political commentary.
***You're completely correct. I am not in any way expressing the concern of any admirals or intelligence officials or any of the countries in SEATO at all. I'm just making this stuff up. I should write a novel.I can call it BACON! The Rise and Fall of Wienerdog Hegemony in the Late 21st Century.

You threw Obama into the China comment, don't walk away from it by claiming "I didn't blame him". You pointed to it being his watch, that infers responsibility.
***Fair point. Let me clarify. His actions during this period will be defined as good or bad as these events start. I have no idea, just that this will be the penultimate transition in the I have no idea how it turns out, or even if we will be involved. I just hope the chicken hawks don't kill us all.


***I should also note, you appear to defensive in my statements about Obama. Again to be clear, I am not saying that historians will say he was a bad President. Like all Presidents there were good events and bad ones, good policies and bad ones. I will also admit that in 500 or 100 years they m,ay judge him on criteria totally totally different than we realize now. I think china may be one of those events, but who really knows.
As we're on the subject of China, Mandarin flavor Tic Tac please!
***Excellent.

Bush went to war on a lie. WMD's were not present. That feth up is his, Cheney's and Rice's to wear for posterity.
Once again, your Chinese Magic Eight Ball predictions have no standing.
My statements are defensive in as much as I find your comments about the "bad" things during Obama's tenure as having no sense of perspective or standing because the events you label as "bad' have barely begun to be played out yet, so where does "bad", or "good" for that matter, even have standing?
Understand, I'm not even a big fan of Obama, but the absolute bullgak that get's pinned on him consistently by certain sectors of the political spectrum, with very little, if any, acknowledgement for the many positive achievements of his administration is just ugly partisanship, for partisanship's sake, at it's worse. It's your right to be partisan, if that's your ilk, but I don't care to issue passes on this stuff any more.

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'm on board with the 15 year argument. China is facing a major economic crisis in the next two decades, and it may very well drive war.

Any time a nation in their situation really starts ramping up their military capabilities... you need to take note of it.

indeed, it might be prudent to follow the "get out of the way" portion of "lead, follow, or get out of the way."

It's likely that it won't even be us they throw down with. Japan, Vietnam, or Korea will be the more likely targets. We're going to be drawn in though. Our interests in that part of the world are to large.

Only if we let ourselves be drawn in. Its a war we could lose, and badly (and thats assuming no nukes).

We wouldn't. It would be bloody, but there is still a massive gap between our respective military powers, that no one else can come close to matching.

And there wouldn't be much of a choice. Korea or Japan, we have to participate. Our forces would be hit, long with theirs, because we're so intricately tied in with them, and that doesn't even touch on the mutual defense treaties.

Then you have the economic impact. We cannot allow China to take uncontested control of the shipping lanes of the South Pacific. That would be utterly disastrous for the world's economy.

Why do you think their building islands down there. For more then just the natural resources.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'm on board with the 15 year argument. China is facing a major economic crisis in the next two decades, and it may very well drive war.

Any time a nation in their situation really starts ramping up their military capabilities... you need to take note of it.

They're also really ramping up their space program. It's like they're trying to catch up with everyone else on everything.

Nah, it is more like they are trying to keep their space station from falling to earth.

Bush went to war on a lie. WMD's were not present. That feth up is his, Cheney's and Rice's to wear for posterity.
***Obama went to war because of TOTAL. That feth up is his and Clinton's to wear for posterity.

Once again, your Chinese Magic Eight Ball predictions have no standing.
***My Magic 8ball is highly offended, and demands a safe space to recover. Next time a trigger warning and plate of bacon are required young man.

My statements are defensive in as much as I find your comments about the "bad" things during Obama's tenure as having no sense of perspective or standing because the events you label as "bad' have barely begun to be played out yet, so where does "bad", or "good" for that matter, even have standing?
***Again thats how historical review works. Often the good and bad are not really apparent at the time.

Understand, I'm not even a big fan of Obama, but the absolute bullgak that get's pinned on him consistently by certain sectors of the political spectrum, with very little, if any, acknowledgement for the many positive achievements of his administration is just ugly partisanship, for partisanship's sake,
****Which is not what I did. Else I'd be screaming: Benghazi! Economy! National Debt! Obamacare! and the criminal offense of wearing a bicycle helmet with rolled up sleeves and jeans. DORK!!!

***However, you bring up a good point. Obamacare. It will either be viewed as a terrible collapse of the medical system, or alternatively as the first step that led to Canada style single payer system. We'll see what happens there.

at it's worse. It's your right to be partisan, if that's your ilk, but I don't care to issue passes on this stuff any more.
***As noted above I wasn't playing the partisan game, unless you enshroud all criticisms with such, in that case thats on you.


We wouldn't. It would be bloody, but there is still a massive gap between our respective military powers, that no one else can come close to matching.
***I'm sure thats what the French thought as the Germans crossed the Ardennes.

And there wouldn't be much of a choice. Korea or Japan, we have to participate. Our forces would be hit, long with theirs, because we're so intricately tied in with them, and that doesn't even touch on the mutual defense treaties.
***Korea doesn't seem part of it currently. Japan-it would be a naval fight (and a short one). Further, thats currently, who knows whats there in the future. We are a declining empire.

Then you have the economic impact. We cannot allow China to take uncontested control of the shipping lanes of the South Pacific. That would be utterly disastrous for the world's economy.
***Beats nuke strikes on our "centers of communication." I don't mind building stuff in the Americas again.

Why do you think their building islands down there. For more then just the natural resources.
****Exactly.

 Frazzled wrote:
Bush went to war on a lie. WMD's were not present. That feth up is his, Cheney's and Rice's to wear for posterity.
***Obama went to war because of TOTAL. That feth up is his and Clinton's to wear for posterity.

Once again, your Chinese Magic Eight Ball predictions have no standing.
***My Magic 8ball is highly offended, and demands a safe space to recover. Next time a trigger warning and plate of bacon are required young man.

My statements are defensive in as much as I find your comments about the "bad" things during Obama's tenure as having no sense of perspective or standing because the events you label as "bad' have barely begun to be played out yet, so where does "bad", or "good" for that matter, even have standing?
***Again thats how historical review works. Often the good and bad are not really apparent at the time.

Understand, I'm not even a big fan of Obama, but the absolute bullgak that get's pinned on him consistently by certain sectors of the political spectrum, with very little, if any, acknowledgement for the many positive achievements of his administration is just ugly partisanship, for partisanship's sake,
****Which is not what I did. Else I'd be screaming: Benghazi! Economy! National Debt! Obamacare! and the criminal offense of wearing a bicycle helmet with rolled up sleeves and jeans. DORK!!!

***However, you bring up a good point. Obamacare. It will either be viewed as a terrible collapse of the medical system, or alternatively as the first step that led to Canada style single payer system. We'll see what happens there.

at it's worse. It's your right to be partisan, if that's your ilk, but I don't care to issue passes on this stuff any more.
***As noted above I wasn't playing the partisan game, unless you enshroud all criticisms with such, in that case thats on you.

TOTAL - I'm drawing a blank. Acronym? What is this an acronym for?
All my bacon is reserved for my household.
And your point about "Again thats how historical review works. Often the good and bad are not really apparent at the time.", flies in the face of your comments about "...he will be noted for the negatives of Libya and Syria...". That doesn't sound neutral in any way. Nor does it sound like it's coming from someone who acknowledges how historical review works, but is rather an offhand slap and sits directly at the crux of my pushback. You state such judgements are not possible at the time, but then make judgemental statements.
I enshroud biased criticisms...see comment immediately above...as partisan. I'm pretty sure everyone does.

TOTAL - I'm drawing a blank. Acronym? What is this an acronym for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_S.A.


All my bacon is reserved for my household.
***Thats just mean.

And your point about "Again thats how historical review works. Often the good and bad are not really apparent at the time.", flies in the face of your comments about "...he will be noted for the negatives of Libya and Syria...".
***Right now they are negatives.

That doesn't sound neutral in any way.
***Right now they are negatives.

Nor does it sound like it's coming from someone who acknowledges how historical review works, but is rather an offhand slap and sits directly at the crux of my pushback. You state such judgements are not possible at the time, but then make judgemental statements.
***I AM THE LAW!!!

I enshroud biased criticisms...see comment immediately above...as partisan. I'm pretty sure everyone does.
***This appears to indicate that negative criticisms of Obama are not permitted.

 Frazzled wrote:
TOTAL - I'm drawing a blank. Acronym? What is this an acronym for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_S.A.


All my bacon is reserved for my household.
***Thats just mean.

And your point about "Again thats how historical review works. Often the good and bad are not really apparent at the time.", flies in the face of your comments about "...he will be noted for the negatives of Libya and Syria...".
***Right now they are negatives.

That doesn't sound neutral in any way.
***Right now they are negatives.

Nor does it sound like it's coming from someone who acknowledges how historical review works, but is rather an offhand slap and sits directly at the crux of my pushback. You state such judgements are not possible at the time, but then make judgemental statements.
***I AM THE LAW!!!

I enshroud biased criticisms...see comment immediately above...as partisan. I'm pretty sure everyone does.
***This appears to indicate that negative criticisms of Obama are not permitted.

You can't respond with "Right now they are negatives." and reconcile that with your statement defending your bias, in the same thread, that you understand how historical review works, particularly with regards to the events in question which are still, as we speak, unfolding. It doesn't jibe and is my point here.
Criticize Obama all you'd like, I do, but save the unfounded bias for the water cooler...or the bacon aisle at the Piggly Wiggly. All complaints regarding said bacon availability are to be forwarded to my English Bulldog. I'd post a picture, but I still seem to a bit of a luddite when it comes to that process.