Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• IggyPride00

  

  Reagan said he was going to defeat them and his policies led directly to their downfall.

  Indirectly ours as well as he was the first president in modern politics that brought on wild deficit spending, tripling our national debt during his presidency.
  
  30 years later our presidents are still following his lead and saying it is OK because the last guy did it.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BGFalcons82;1062138 wrote:No, Reagan bankrupted them. Reading what you wrote, it sounds like Ronnie was the lucky office holder when the Soviet empire came tumbling down. Bullbutter. I suppose now you'll espouse Carter as having as big an influence as Reagan in defeating the Evil Empire. Reagan said he was going to defeat them and his policies led directly to their downfall. Oh...Ptown..are you trying to insinuate that Read-My-Lips Bush defeated the Soviets? If Reagan could have remained POTUS as long as Roosevelt, then it would be moot.

  No, I said I it was a combination of many factors, not just Reagan. If I had to say more credit to anyone it would be George Kennan, the father of containment.
  Foreign Affairs has a nice run down on him, and the new book by Gaddis is really good.
  http://www.foreignaffairs.com/features/collections/the-legacy-of-george-f-kennan?cid=nlc-this_week_on_foreignaffairs_co-120811-the_legacy_of_george_f_kennan_3-120811
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Cleveland Buck;1062136 wrote:Again, because Charles Krauthammer believes Paul wants a 19th century foreign policy doesn't make it true. In the 19th century we had protective tariffs and we didn't share intelligence with allies around the world. Paul supports free trade with all nations and working with allies without sending them money stolen from the people here. He also supports using the navy to protect the freedom of the seas without keeping bases in countries that despise our presence there. I don't understand what is so radical about that.
  
  Yes countries in Europe that already can't pay for their welfare states would go bankrupt if they had to defend themselves, but they are going bankrupt anyway, and it isn't our responsibility to pay for their defense.
  
  If Eisenhower were alive he would almost definitely endorse Paul out of this bunch of bloodthirsty clowns. Ron Paul is the only one who wants to stop the wars fought for government contractors. Surely this means Eisenhower was some liberal kook.
  
  "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

  I'd agree that if Ike was alive, Paul would be the closest to him. The others follow the borderline neocon route.
  That said, to me, today the policy needs to follow like Ike, than before Wilson. We still need to be involved, we just have to make the right choices.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1062177 wrote:I'd agree that if Ike was alive, Paul would be the closest to him. The others follow the borderline neocon route. That said, to me, today the policy needs to follow like Ike, than before Wilson. We still need to be involved, we just have to make the right choices.

  I agree. I've posted in the past that it's time to be lean and mean when it comes to our foreign involvements.
  
  We need to pull out of western Europe, scale back in Japan & Korea, and maintain a strong military footing in the Middle East. We also need to take serious steps to reign-in fraud, corruption and waste in the military procurement process.
  
  I think Ike, Ron Paul, and Cleveland Buck might agree.
• isadore

  ptown_trojans_1;1062177 wrote:I'd agree that if Ike was alive, Paul would be the closest to him. The others follow the borderline neocon route.
  That said, to me, today the policy needs to follow like Ike, than before Wilson. We still need to be involved, we just have to make the right choices.

  Really
  1953 overthrow of Mossadegh regime in Iran
  1954 over throw of Arbenz regime in Guatemala\
  1958 US Marines intervene in Lebanon
  1960 Lubumba overthrown in the Congo
  900 military advisers into South Vietnam
  Threat of use of Nuclear weapons on North Korea and China
  And versus what a bigot like Paul would do
  1957 US troops into Little Rock Arkansas to enforce school integration
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;1062015 wrote:Ron Paul is not a conservative. He is a libertarian. Once you understand the difference, you will understand why conservatives have issues with him. Conservatives believe in limited government, the rule of law, equal opportunities for all, and a strong national defense. Contrary to what the media spews, conservatives believe there are certain things the government should provide.
  
  It's been stated ad nauseum, but here goes again: His beliefs in pseudo-isolationist policies (non-interventionalist is the word he uses to make him sound so much better than all the others) and his libertarian view that drug use is A-OK as long as it doesn't hurt anyone do not make him a conservative. I will agree his free-market policies, his stances on taxes, and getting government out of the way are conservative views but it ends there. For an example of the best conservative of the past 40 years, Ronald Reagan believed in these things AND a strong national defense.
  
  Speaking of Reagan, did you know that Nancy was his 2nd wife? I suppose that means he had bad morals, too, eh?

  Key word.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;1062015 wrote:Ron Paul is not a conservative. He is a libertarian. Once you understand the difference, you will understand why conservatives have issues with him. Conservatives believe in limited government, the rule of law, equal opportunities for all, and a strong national<strong> defense</strong>. Contrary to what the media spews, conservatives believe there are certain things the government should provide. <br>
  <br>
  It's been stated ad nauseum, but here goes again: His beliefs in pseudo-isolationist policies (non-interventionalist is the word he uses to make him sound so much better than all the others) and his libertarian view that drug use is A-OK as long as it doesn't hurt anyone do not make him a conservative. I will agree his free-market policies, his stances on taxes, and getting government out of the way are conservative views but it ends there. For an example of the best conservative of the past 40 years, Ronald Reagan believed in these things AND a strong national defense. <br>
  <br>
  Speaking of Reagan, did you know that Nancy was his 2nd wife? I suppose that means he had bad morals, too, eh?

  Key word.
  
  As for the wife thing. It means he's a hypocrite if he harped on the sanctity of marriage and such.
• QuakerOats

  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-defends-roe-v-wade-way-our-daughters-have-same-chance-sons-fulfill-their-dreams
• IggyPride00

  

  [video=youtube_share;H2r_YevgDj4][/video]
• stlouiedipalma

  BGFalcons82;1062138 wrote:No, Reagan bankrupted them. Reading what you wrote, it sounds like Ronnie was the lucky office holder when the Soviet empire came tumbling down. Bullbutter. I suppose now you'll espouse Carter as having as big an influence as Reagan in defeating the Evil Empire. Reagan said he was going to defeat them and his policies led directly to their downfall. Oh...Ptown..are you trying to insinuate that Read-My-Lips Bush defeated the Soviets? If Reagan could have remained POTUS as long as Roosevelt, then it would be moot.
  
  Reagan understood the Middle East because he pulled out of Beirut, eh? Then how do you explain going after Quaddafi? How do you explain his intimidation of the Iranian "students" holding American hostages? Reagan carried a big stick and was unafraid to use it. Matter of fact, he loved to wave it at penny-enny tin pot dictators because it was effective. Cutting the military budget, reducing our strength, and isolating ourselves are not conservative actions, I don't care how many times you write that it is.

  
  I was wondering when someone would get to the real reason the Soviet empire crumbled. We outspent them. I'm sure that MAD didn't hurt, but the bottom line is that, as we spent wildly on the Defense budget, they simply couldn't keep up.
• HitsRus

  

  Really
  1953 overthrow of Mossadegh regime in Iran
  1954 over throw of Arbenz regime in Guatemala\
  1958 US Marines intervene in Lebanon
  1960 Lubumba overthrown in the Congo
  900 military advisers into South Vietnam
  Threat of use of Nuclear weapons on North Korea and China
  And versus what a bigot like Paul would do
  1957 US troops into Little Rock Arkansas to enforce school integration

  If this is Ron Paul's 'non-interventionism" then he needs to be more forthcoming especially to his disicples. Other than that, I'll agree alot with ptown in that Kennan's ideas and influence, along with the National Security Act of '47, was an acknowledgement that no longer could the United States ignore world politics.....and that by it's very nature as a superpower, would be a major and dominant player on the world stage economically, politically, and militarily.
• pmoney25

  

  HitsRus;1063616 wrote:If this is Ron Paul's 'non-interventionism" then he needs to be more forthcoming especially to his disicples. Other than that, I'll agree alot with ptown in that Kennan's ideas and influence, along with the National Security Act of '47, was an acknowledgement that no longer could the United States ignore world politics.....and that by it's very nature as a superpower, would be a major and dominant player on the world stage economically, politically, and militarily.

  Yea and since 1947 we have got the Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan...Those all worked out pretty well for us. That has been a great philosophy. All this money that we have spent on Policing the World has brought us nothing.
  
  It is kind of Ironic that you bring up us winning the Cold War when the main reason we won that war was that the Soviets could not keep up economically with all the money they were spending trying to maintain the Union and defense spending.
  
  Even if we cut our MILITARY spending by what Paul wants, we would still outspend everyone else by a wide margin. I highlighted the most important word in your post. Without the economy no amount of military might will prevent this country from collapse.
• HitsRus

  

  Since 1947 the United States has prospered for the most part, save for the past few years. No world wars have conflagrated due to our vigilance. Every president since Truman has recognised the need for American presence in global affairs. I think a lot of Americans listen to what Paul is saying and just scratch their heads..."Just how is that going to WORK?" His stuff makes for a great talking point, but in practicality, ehhhh just how is that going to work? It seem so clear to you Paulists....how come evrybody isn't grasping it? Why? because it's either bullshit or he's not communicating it very well. Or you could be like Buck and just chalk it up to our 'indoctrination'...lol
• Footwedge

  HitsRus;1063616 wrote:If this is Ron Paul's 'non-interventionism" then he needs to be more forthcoming especially to his disicples. Other than that, I'll agree alot with ptown in that Kennan's ideas and influence, along with the National Security Act of '47, was an acknowledgement that no longer could the United States ignore world politics.....and that by it's very nature as a superpower, would be a major and dominant player on the world stage economically, politically, and militarily.

  What we signed after WWII means absolutely nothing. We agreed to abolish torturing prisoners of war. How's that working out for us?
  
  Our founders made it clear..."we do not seek out monsters to destroy"..."free trade and friends with all nations...and entangling alliances with none".
  
  Hits...who's paying for the empire anyway? Not you nor me that's for sure. You must not care a whole lot about a 15 trillion dollar national debt either.
• pmoney25

  

  HitsRus;1063690 wrote:Since 1947 the United States has prospered for the most part, save for the past few years. No world wars have conflagrated due to our vigilance. Every president since Truman has recognised the need for American presence in global affairs. I think a lot of Americans listen to what Paul is saying and just scratch their heads..."Just how is that going to WORK?" His stuff makes for a great talking point, but in practicality, ehhhh just how is that going to work? It seem so clear to you Paulists....how come evrybody isn't grasping it? Why? because it's either bull**** or he's not communicating it very well. Or you could be like Buck and just chalk it up to our 'indoctrination'...lol

  
  I disagree, I would say most Americans would rather us spend money and resources here rather than policing the world or as you call it, having a strong global prescense. I would gather by the fact Paul recieves more support from the militarythan any of the other candidates that the people who fight these wars dont agree with you.
  
  And for the last time Paul has never said he wants to eliminate the military nor has he said he is anti war. He just believes we should do it the right way.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  pmoney25;1063658 wrote:Yea and since 1947 we have got the Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan...Those all worked out pretty well for us. That has been a great philosophy. All this money that we have spent on Policing the World has brought us nothing.
  
  It is kind of Ironic that you bring up us winning the Cold War when the main reason we won that war was that the Soviets could not keep up economically with all the money they were spending trying to maintain the Union and defense spending.
  
  Even if we cut our MILITARY spending by what Paul wants, we would still outspend everyone else by a wide margin. I highlighted the most important word in your post. Without the economy no amount of military might will prevent this country from collapse.

  Footwedge;1063693 wrote:What we signed after WWII means absolutely nothing. We agreed to abolish torturing prisoners of war. How's that working out for us?
  
  Our founders made it clear..."we do not seek out monsters to destroy"..."free trade and friends with all nations...and entangling alliances with none".
  
  Hits...who's paying for the empire anyway? Not you nor me that's for sure. You must not care a whole lot about a 15 trillion dollar national debt either.

  pmoney25;1063749 wrote:I disagree, I would say most Americans would rather us spend money and resources here rather than policing the world or as you call it, having a strong global prescense. I would gather by the fact Paul recieves more support from the militarythan any of the other candidates that the people who fight these wars dont agree with you.
  
  And for the last time Paul has never said he wants to eliminate the military nor has he said he is anti war. He just believes we should do it the right way.

  From 1945-1991 the threat of all out thermonuclear war dominated U.S. foreign policy. Any and all actions must be taken in that context.
  Also, yes, our GDP and military presence around the globe from 1945-1991 helped defeat the Soviets. Containment worked, it just took a while.
  
  As to since 1991, the 90s were all about trying to figure out what to do post-Cold War, and we really didn't have a strategy. Post 9/11 same deal, the policies were largely over-reactionary and a frankly wrong.
  
  Now, we still need to be involved around the world, the global economy depends on it. We just have to pick our spots.
  That all said, Paul is not as crazy as people make him to be, but I'd still lean against all his proposed cuts.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1064528 wrote:From 1945-1991 the threat of all out thermonuclear war dominated U.S. foreign policy. Any and all actions must be taken in that context.
  Also, yes, our GDP and military presence around the globe from 1945-1991 helped defeat the Soviets. Containment worked, it just took a while.
  
  As to since 1991, the 90s were all about trying to figure out what to do post-Cold War, and we really didn't have a strategy. Post 9/11 same deal, the policies were largely over-reactionary and a frankly wrong.
  
  Now, we still need to be involved around the world, the global economy depends on it. We just have to pick our spots.
  That all said, Paul is not as crazy as people make him to be, but I'd still lean against all his proposed cuts.

  It is easy to say containment and our worldwide presence worked because the Soviets eventually bankrupted themselves, but that is a logical fallacy. Their collapse had nothing to do with our actions and everything to do with their economic system. If anything our meddling across the world propped them up longer than they would have lasted. If they were able to invade countries and spread their empire they probably would have bankrupted themselves 25 years earlier. They weren't going to attack us because they would have been destroyed.
  
  As for the global economy depending on our presence, I don't see evidence of that either. Europe depends on it, and our bailouts, but they are going bankrupt anyway, and we will destroy ourselves trying to prop them up much longer. Asia doesn't need or want us over there. We need to defend the freedom of the seas, which no one is even opposing. The Middle East hates us over there. The Saudi dictator needs our support to stay in power, but we are just creating more enemies propping him up.
  
  If you think the Arab countries are going to stop selling oil when we get off of their land, then that is absurd. Oil is all they have. They are going to sit on the oil and starve just to punish us?
  
  We can have allies and work with countries and protect our shipping without invading and occupying half of the globe. The thing is, peace and the prosperity that accompanies free market capitalism will give many of these people a taste for freedom and they will take care of their own situations without our meddling.
• BGFalcons82

  

  As is quite typical in previous administrations, the documents and the truth eventually rise to the surface - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/eleven-stunning-revelations-from-a-confidential-economics-memo-to-president-obama/
  
  Here are the 11 revelations, courtesy of Larry Summers:
  
  1. The stimulus was about implementing the Obama agenda.
  2. Team Obama knows these deficits are dangerous (although it has offered no long-term plan to deal with them).
  3. Obamanomics was pricier than advertised.
  4. Even Washington can only spend so much money so fast.
  5. Liberals can complain about the stimulus having too many tax cuts, but even Team Obama thought more spending was unrealistic.
  
  
  6. Team Obama wanted to use courts to force massive mortgage principal writedowns.
  7. Team Obama thought a stimulus plan of more than $1 trillion would spook financial markets and send interest rates climbing.
  8. Greg Mankiw, economic adviser to Mitt Romney, was dubious about the stimulus.
  9. But the Fed was a stimulus enabler.
  10. IPAB was there at the very beginning.
  11. The financial crisis wasn&#8217;t just Wall Street&#8217;s fault.
  
  
  
  
• QuakerOats

  The King of Dependency:
  
  http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=598993&ibdbot=1&p=2
  
  "Once we thought 'entitlement' meant that Americans were entitled to the privilege of trying to succeed in the greatest country in the world," Romney said in a recent speech. "But today the new entitlement battle is over the size of the check you get from Washington."
• QuakerOats

  The Job-Killer President strikes again ----- this time First Energy will shut down 6 power plants specifically because of obama's EPA and their radical agenda. Hundreds will lose their jobs in Ohio and PA. It is perhaps the only political rhetoric that this president is making good on: he said he would bankrupt the coal industry and he is well on his way to doing so by FORCING coal-generated plants to close.
  
  Change we can believe in ......
• gut

  Gawd....His speech at U of M was awful and sickening. More blaming the deficit on the rich not paying enough taxes.
  
  And then a gem about how subsidies contribute to higher education costs....but we're still going to give you MORE subsidies - we'll "try" to incentivize universities to keep tuitions down. Now, mind you, Obama doesn't know what budget cuts look like or even what a budget is, but it's part of his plan for reigning in college tuition costs.
• QuakerOats

  FirstEnergy Shutting Down 6 coal-Fired Power Plants

  FirstEnergy says that new Obama administration&#8217;s environmental regulations led to a decision to shutdown 6 coal-fired power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, laying off more than 400 employees. The plants, which are in Cleveland, Ashtabula, Oregon and Eastlake in Ohio, Adrian, Pennsylvania and Williamsport, Maryland, will be retired by September 1[SUP]st[/SUP]. They have generated about 10% of the electricity produced by FirstEnergy over the last 3 years, the company said. &#8216;This decision is not in any way a reflection of the fine work done by the employees at the affected plants, but is related to the impact of new environmental rules,&#8217; said James Lash, president unit. He said that a review of the company&#8217;s coal-fired plants determined it would not be cost-effective to get the older ones into compliance with the stringent new regulations EPA announced in December. The new standards are designed to drive up the cost of coal and oil-fired power plants so that they can&#8217;t compete with subsidized renewables and natural gas and are shut down. A recent survey found that the changes are likely shutdown dozens of units in the Midwest and in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia. FirstEnergy said its decision would directly affect 529 employees.
• IggyPride00

  

  QuakerOats;1067568 wrote:The Job-Killer President strikes again ----- this time First Energy will shut down 6 power plants specifically because of obama's EPA and their radical agenda. Hundreds will lose their jobs in Ohio and PA. It is perhaps the only political rhetoric that this president is making good on: he said he would bankrupt the coal industry and he is well on his way to doing so by FORCING coal-generated plants to close.
  
  Change we can believe in ......

  He told us when he was running for President that energy rates would necessarily have to sky rocket.
• IggyPride00

  

  QuakerOats;1067639 wrote:

  FirstEnergy Shutting Down 6 coal-Fired Power Plants

  FirstEnergy says that new Obama administration&#8217;s environmental regulations led to a decision to shutdown 6 coal-fired power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, laying off more than 400 employees. The plants, which are in Cleveland, Ashtabula, Oregon and Eastlake in Ohio, Adrian, Pennsylvania and Williamsport, Maryland, will be retired by September 1[SUP]st[/SUP]. They have generated about 10% of the electricity produced by FirstEnergy over the last 3 years, the company said. &#8216;This decision is not in any way a reflection of the fine work done by the employees at the affected plants, but is related to the impact of new environmental rules,&#8217; said James Lash, president unit. He said that a review of the company&#8217;s coal-fired plants determined it would not be cost-effective to get the older ones into compliance with the stringent new regulations EPA announced in December. The new standards are designed to drive up the cost of coal and oil-fired power plants so that they can&#8217;t compete with subsidized renewables and natural gas and are shut down. A recent survey found that the changes are likely shutdown dozens of units in the Midwest and in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia. FirstEnergy said its decision would directly affect 529 employees.

  
  [video=youtube_share;HlTxGHn4sH4][/video]
  
  "This is what change looks like"
• QuakerOats

  FirstEnergy Announces EPA Compliance Strategy - Shutter Plants
  
  FirstEnergy announced that its subsidiaries in multiple states will shut down power plants to respond to U.S. EPA's relentless assault on affordable coal. In its press release FirstEnergy said that the plant shut downs will eliminate approximately 10% of its total electricity supply.
  
  American Electric Power and Duke Energy Ohio both announced plant closures planned for next year in response to the U.S. EPA's war on coal. In response to the FirstEnergy announcement Senator Rob Portman issued a press release saying, "There is no reason Ohioans should have to choose between holding onto a good paying job and protecting the environment." Legislation authored by Portman would require U.S. EPA to measure the economic costs of regulations before promulgating rules. The Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011 passed the U.S. House in bipartisan fashion last year. 01/27/2012