For all things relative to politics.

[BigLutz]

I'm with Carlisle, I don't see him wanting to go into some Communist Dictatorship. Alot of this is born out of fear over the horrible power grab he has done during these past few months, but we are a long way from anything close to resembling a Communist Dictatorship. And if all else fails, 2nd Amendment ~.^

But no, this sounds like the Right Wing's version of everything Democrats said about Bush the last few years. "He isn't going to give up the White House, he is going to shut down the election, blah blah blah". Granted I see us moving toward a more socialist country if he stays in office for 8 years, but that is what mid term elections are for, and the one we have coming up in 3 years.

Lol, okay, I'll dig up another source then. (;

Its okay, I don't doubt her poll numbers have dropped, anyone's would if you consider everything that has happened the past year. She was the VP Candidate against a very popular Candidate, since she was the VP Candidate she was required to be overly aggressive. She was lied about by many, and made to look like a absolute idiot, she had any number of horrible stories about them, many of them with absolutely no truth to them what so ever. As shown in the last two pages of this topic. After the election she had three ethic complaints pushed against her ( all were dismissed ), she continues to be attacked in the media, from Vanity Fair to Dave Letterman.

I mean seriously when you are at that kind of disadvantage, not only from what happened during the election, but the absolute foaming at the mouth media hate for her. Of course her numbers are going to be lowered.

 

[Carlisle]

Yes. I believe it is justified to say that compared to the last eight years, Obama's policies are socialistic. Frankly, I don't think America could EVER become communist, socialist, etc. The way this country is set up, the way it has been, the way our election system is set up, the way our government is set up, prevents us from going down that route. The only way I see it happening is if the American people want it, and that also is very unlikely.

Frankly, I understand now how the Republicans felt during the Bush years. I was younger back then, so I just kind of shrugged it off. But once you get into politics it's aggravating when the extremists on the opposite side say such...well, extreme things.

 

[ccangelopearl1362]

Hmm… That might be it. The Democrats were in charge in 1979, but two years later, Ronald Reagan defeated, or trounced, Jimmy Carter to become the 40th President of America. They may very well try a similar formula now, adhering to their current form of governmental intervention, but the American public in general may still favor private enterprise. Consequently, the more ardently Obama tries to, say, nationalize health care, the more dissatisfied the general public will be. I said in this thread about four months ago – somewhere near the middle of page 20, to be more specific – that I would give the United States four years to reject Obama’s brand of “Hope and Change”, but it may be even closer to doing so than I thought, and the Democrats may still have a less solid grip in Congress than they would like.:

American Thinker: Bruce Walker: Our Melting President
Fox News Channel: Democrats’ Senate Supermajority Not as Strong as Advertised

“It is not the soft, fluffy feelings about Obama that really matter. It is the intense feelings about him,” writes Bruce Walker. While Obama began his presidency with a lot of energetic support, nowadays, the margin between the people who “strongly disapprove” of him and the people who “strongly approve” of him has narrowed considerably. Scott Rasmussen may do a better job of tracking this shift in the American people’s opinion of Obama than the rest of the press, and he might still have some trouble in the Senate, between Joe Lieberman’s independence and Bernie Sanders’ more explicit socialism. The Blue Dog Democrats may be less predictable than one might expect, but in my case, I’m sensing trouble for Barack Obama in the coming weeks and months. At this point, I can only stand – or sit – amazed that the United States has gotten this far with its basic premises and foundations intact, and its people may even more eager to discontinue Obama’s penchant for state-based solutions in 2010. I will be content with tracking this trend as it progresses, and hopefully, it will be enough to persuade Barack Obama to take up the premise behind his office rather than continue rejecting it.

 

[Kazekage]

North Korea, truly a country I despise at the moments.

If the world was a community North Korea would be the hole were we chuck all the 6 year olds to immature to understand that not ever ****ing person on the planet can have their eyes turned towards them every second of ever day.

Whenever the media starts movie on the more important issues, here come lil kim.

Oh Oh look I have nukes I have nukes , I'll set them off, look at me! Look at me!!

Honestly if they had the balls to bomb China or the U.S they would've done it by now. Notice how they don't even blink the wrong way with Russia? Probably because Russia takes such threats VERY seriously.

Serious consideration should be taken to strip North Korea of it's sovereignty, and put it under a much more responsible nation, preferably Japan. Although China has the man power to control riots and such if they do occur.

 

[Tim the turtle]

I'm going to quote a friend on a different website because I rather liked this response he gave on the topic of North Korea (and Iran) gaining nuclear weapons.

Qouted from Crazedmongoose:

Why do we assume countries like Iran and North Korea are irrational?

In my opinion they're acting in the most sensible and rational way. And there are numerous experts from left and right who agree with me.


Let's look at the facts in a very sterile manner. This can apply to both Iran and North Korea.


USA supports a strategic interest diametrically opposed to ours (Israel and the Gulf States for Iran, South Korea and Japan for North Korea), they are therefore our enemy.

The USA are strong, we are weak.

The USA has many allies and the mandate of the world, we have few allies and are considered a rogue state.

In our current form there is nothing substantive to stop our strategic enemies, including the USA, to attack us economically/militarily hinder us or invade us (this goes more for Iran than North Korea who have the looming protector of China, but the fact that China will probably not go to war with the US ever or at least not over North Korea is worrying them).

Past histories has shown the US to be able to take courses of action without the mandate of its allies or the international community (namely invasion of Iraq and support of Israel).



So then, in terms of bargaining chips, leverage, or anything, what do these rogue states have at all? They have nothing. They're absolutely at the US' mercies. No matter how much they devote to their conventional militaries, it won't work. Most game scenarios says the North Korea which spends a hideous amount of it's national resources on defence cannot even hold the US for like a month.

The ONLY factor which makes the US absolutely unable to think about messing with an antagonistic state is, a functional nuclear arsenal. The minute you get a batch of those, bam, threat of full scale conventional war over.

So if you're invulnerable with nuclear weapons and vulnerable without it, then the MOST vulnerable time is the time taken when you're trying to develop it. So what do you do during this period?

You weave, you dodge, you act crazy. One day you approach the talks, the next day you storm out. One day you allow UN inspectors in and say you'll cooperate, the next day you kick them out and boast you have the weapons already. One day you're cooperative with the USA and talk of wanting nothing but peace, the next day you go to China/Russia and promise them the world.


Basically it's a wild gambit but it's the only sure chance of survival. How do we know this? Because it's exactly what China did to gain complete strategic autonomy from the USSR in the Cold War. They managed to raise their position from that of a satellite state to an equal level competitor by acting batshit insane, supporting random dictatorships with no strategic interest (Albania, Khmer Rouge in Cambodia), talking to every side possible (Partnership with the USA), even invading random countries (Sino-Vietnamese war), all with the view of attaining nuclear weapons.

I mean yes China absolutely went to the crapper during that time, GDP was down, trade was none existent, widespread starvation and social strife, a near coup de tat. But they got the nuclear weapon and ever since was able to develop to world power status on their own terms. Note that China is the only large power in the world which isn't a democracy, which isn't market based, which has the potential to be very antagonistic towards both the West and Russia. Which has no clear set strategic enemies or allies. Yet China entered very late into the game. Do you think the other world powers would have let them develop uncurbed like this if China didn't have some kind of a ace in the pocket? That ace is nuclear capabilities.

 

[BigLutz]

The problem with his logic is that North Korea and Iran are not developing them for defensive purposes. While granted that is a possibility, they have shown absolutely no hint that they are for defensive purposes, but for offensive purposes or for monetary gain. For example Iran's continuous supply of terrorist groups both that target the US and Israel, and Iran's constant threatening gesters toward Israel. I mean seriously no one here doubts that Iran want's Israel destroyed, and they have been diverting attention to that goal for decades now. Handing Nuclear Weapons to Hamas or Hezbollah would be a massive step forward for that group.

Now on the topic of North Korea, a country who has not had a military threat really made toward it in over 60 years. They are well known for selling off military assets, especially to rogue states that western countries have banned those sales from. For example that ship that was turned around several days ago was suspected of shipping weapons to a banned country. With various terrorist groups vying for WMDs, is it any guess that North Korea is perfecting a bomb for the biggest bidder? They have done so with every other weapon, why not with this one? They desperately need the money because of the sanctions placed upon them, they are a starving country.

 

[Tim the turtle]

I don't really think you can claim it's a flaw in his logic when he never expressly doubts that NK or Iran would use them offensively. Indeed having seen other posts by him I know he's still pretty worried about those states gaining access to the bomb. Rather I quoted him in an effort to supply a reason for this statement from Kazekage:

Whenever the media starts movie on the more important issues, here come lil kim.

Oh Oh look I have nukes I have nukes , I'll set them off, look at me! Look at me!!

 

[BigLutz]

I don't really think you can claim it's a flaw in his logic when he never expressly doubts that NK or Iran would use them offensively. Indeed having seen other posts by him I know he's still pretty worried about those states gaining access to the bomb. Rather I quoted him in an effort to supply a reason for this statement from Kazekage:

Hmm that is true, I apologize its just the over all tone I came away with from the article.

Edit: Deleted my old one and put in a new post.

What the hell is Obama doing?

It's gotten to the point nothing surprises me, but when France is tougher on Iran than the US is, I am taken aback.

In a time when Iran is gunning down innocent people, and about to put British Embassy officials on trial. This pathetic spinless ******* of a President is wanting to hold off on sanctions. Well atleast we know Obama's priority list when it comes to Iran.

Ice Cream with Kids
Ahmadinajad
Mullahs
Iranian People
British Embassy officials held captive

My God how long till we can vote this joke of a human being out?

I wonder how much longer till European Governments start missing Bush?

 

[Carlisle]

Sarah Palin will not run for governor again. CNN doesn't have a link yet, but it's on the TV lol.

This pretty much confirms she will be in the Republican primary runnings.

 

[BigLutz]

Twitter through Breaking News Online is citing the same thing that CNN is saying

http://twitter.com/BreakingNews/statuses/2458206098

Well we got our first contestant for 2012. Next up Romney and possibly Jindal, and if Hillary keeps getting frozen out of Foreign Policy as she is now, expect her in as well.

Edit: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/03/palin-will-not-run-for-re-election/

 

[Carlisle]

Twitter through Breaking News Online is citing the same thing that CNN is saying

http://twitter.com/BreakingNews/statuses/2458206098

Well we got our first contestant for 2012. Next up Romney and possibly Jindal, and if Hillary keeps getting frozen out of Foreign Policy as she is now, expect her in as well.

Edit: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/03/palin-will-not-run-for-re-election/

The 2012 primary seasons and the general election are going to be incredibly juicy and heated. I'm excited already.

I believe Romney is already going state to state giving speeches, so he is a guarantee. You're right about Jindal, and I expect Huckabee to to join the race too. I expect plenty of other Republicans to start throwing out their names at the end of 2010 approaches.
Expect Ron Paul again lolol.

I see what you mean about Hillary. I don't know what other Democrats could come in and step in. :/ It's hard to say now, but I can see Hillary hammering Obama on gay rights and his "dove" approach to foreign policy, as she is far more hawkish.

 

[BigLutz]

The 2012 primary seasons and the general election are going to be incredibly juicy and heated. I'm excited already.

I believe Romney is already going state to state giving speeches, so he is a guarantee. You're right about Jindal, and I expect Huckabee to to join the race too. I expect plenty of other Republicans to start throwing out their names at the end of 2010 approaches.
Expect Ron Paul again lolol.

I see what you mean about Hillary. I don't know what other Democrats could come in and step in. :/ It's hard to say now, but I can see Hillary hammering Obama on gay rights and his "dove" approach to foreign policy, as she is far more hawkish.

I completely agree, I do feel really bad about Hillary, she gave alot for Obama to get elected and heal the riffs, she was given one of the best spots in the Government as thanks, and then Obama completely freezes her out by appointing many Czars that handle Foreign Policy Matters, and to make matters worse, he places Joe Biden in charge of Iraq, I mean seriously, the man that thought splitting Iraq up into three countries is now in charge of White House policy in Iraq...

Please no more Ron Paul and Huckabee, Pleaseeeeeee

 

[randomspot555]

Ron Paul is a candidate there to push certain issues. He's not going to win, but he might have enough sway (that's a big "might"/if) on certain issues though.

But why against Huckabee? Compared to the last two winners of Republican POTUS tickets, I would not mind voting for him. I think he's one of the few men in national politics who actually believes in his religion when he talks about it, compared to many national politicians who sound very forced just so they appear to be good, Christian people. He's got the experience of being a governor. I disagree with him on a handful of social positions, but those seem to get swept aside once someone is put in the White House. I like his support of charter schools, glad he is a "reluctant" supporter of the death penalty, and I think with a well rounded cabinent workin with him, he could do good works in the White House. And while I'm not behind the so-called Fair Tax 100%, Huckabee is, and with a supporter of it in the White House, maybe we could finally get an honest debate on the collection of taxes by the Federal government.

And most importantly, his off-the-cuff comments about Mormons, suicide, and many other issues could give Joe Biden a run for the money.

 

[Carlisle]

I completely agree, I do feel really bad about Hillary, she gave alot for Obama to get elected and heal the riffs, she was given one of the best spots in the Government as thanks, and then Obama completely freezes her out by appointing many Czars that handle Foreign Policy Matters, and to make matters worse, he places Joe Biden in charge of Iraq, I mean seriously, the man that thought splitting Iraq up into three countries is now in charge of White House policy in Iraq...

Please no more Ron Paul and Huckabee, Pleaseeeeeee

Yeah, it is unfair how Biden takes Hillary's place so often. :/

Any other ideas for who might decide to run against Obama in his own party?

Also, another idea for the Republican party, does anybody think Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas might go for a run?

Ron Paul is a candidate there to push certain issues. He's not going to win, but he might have enough sway (that's a big "might"/if) on certain issues though.

But why against Huckabee? Compared to the last two winners of Republican POTUS tickets, I would not mind voting for him. I think he's one of the few men in national politics who actually believes in his religion when he talks about it, compared to many national politicians who sound very forced just so they appear to be good, Christian people. He's got the experience of being a governor. I disagree with him on a handful of social positions, but those seem to get swept aside once someone is put in the White House. I like his support of charter schools, glad he is a "reluctant" supporter of the death penalty, and I think with a well rounded cabinent workin with him, he could do good works in the White House.

And most importantly, his off-the-cuff comments about Mormons, suicide, and many other issues could give Joe Biden a run for the money.

Huckabee is a right wing overly religious nut job. :/ He's way too far to the right and electing him as a Republican nominee would just be a handover to the Democrats for another four years.

 

[BigLutz]

Also, another idea for the Republican party, does anybody think Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas might go for a run?

She's positioning herself to lose to Rick Perry in a fight for the Texas Governor's Race next year. Kay versus Rick has been the talk around here for a long time.

Also on Palin, her political career is pretty much over, she says she is leaving the Governor's Office in 3 weeks. Its too early for a Presidential Run, or a Senate run, and leaving the Governors Office before your first term is finished, is a death nail. Its sad too, she has had 15 Ethics Complaints about her and her staff in the last year, all of them dismissed, she has had the press and idiots target her children over and over again. I really don't blame her if she just plans to pack up and go home.

Then again this is all speculation, she could be trying for a Senate run, or be angling for something on TV or in the Private Sector.

 

[Carlisle]

She's positioning herself to lose to Rick Perry in a fight for the Texas Governor's Race next year. Kay versus Rick has been the talk around here for a long time.

Also on Palin, her political career is pretty much over, she says she is leaving the Governor's Office in 3 weeks. Its too early for a Presidential Run, or a Senate run, and leaving the Governors Office before your first term is finished, is a death nail. Its sad too, she has had 15 Ethics Complaints about her and her staff in the last year, all of them dismissed, she has had the press and idiots target her children over and over again. I really don't blame her if she just plans to pack up and go home.

Then again this is all speculation, she could be trying for a Senate run, or be angling for something on TV or in the Private Sector.

Just a question, but how is politics like in Texas? I know a gal who has moved to McKinney and she tells me the youth in that area is largely democratic, buttt I don't know if she is biased lol.

And the Palin leaving before her first term is even over is a VERY risky move. Republicans criticized Obama for lack of experience, but Palin stepping down this early is even worse. :/
Maybe a Senate run would be better for her, maybe 2012 is too early for Sarah Palin.

 

[BigLutz]

Just a question, but how is politics like in Texas? A know a gal who has moved to McKinney and she tells me the youth in that area is largely democratic, buttt I don't know if she is biased lol.

That makes sense, Dallas, and Austin ( Especially Austin ) Are about as Democratic as San Fransisco. The last two Mayors of Dallas were Democrats, one of them is now one of Obama's Secretaries, the current one now is Republican but was in a very close run off election with a Openly Gay Democrat, and that election was extremely close. The thing is with Texas, it doesn't matter if you are Democrat or Republican, as long as you are Fiscally Conservative and you will be fine.

And the Palin leaving before her first term is even over is a VERY risky move. Republicans criticized Obama for lack of experience, but Palin stepping down this early is even worse. :/
Maybe a Senate run would be better for her, maybe 2012 is too early for Sarah Palin.

Right now I have no idea what to make of it, the way she is talking its either a Senate run, or working as a Fundraiser and Spokesperson as the RNC. I doubt she will run for President now.

 

[ccangelopearl1362]

Hot Air: Ed Morrissey: Is Palin’s national political career over?
Weekly Standard: William Kristol: A Contrarian Take
Hot Air: Allahpundit: Krauthammer on Palin: She’s young, she’ll be back
Hot Air: Ed Morrissey: Video: Matalin thinks Palin is “brilliant” for resigning
American Thinker: Thomas Lifson: Sarah Palin breaks the mold again

I would consider it safe to say that the American conservative blogosphere has been erupting with reactions to Sarah Palin’s resignation announcement yesterday. While Ed Morrissey opines that Palin is finished in the political arena, Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer are positing that she’s simply preparing for a future presidential run, in 2012 according to Kristol, or in 2016 according to Krauthammer. Of course, Krauthammer’s the one arguing that Palin is taking herself out of the picture in 2012 in order to build her credentials to become a leading conservative on the national stage, perhaps by concentrating on building the national conservative movement ad honing her positions on issues affecting the rest of the United States. Mary Matalin cited similar reasons in calling Palin’s resignation “brilliant”, mentioning health care, energy, and the role of government as key issues in the coming months and years, and Thomas Lifson professed to being struck by Palin’s use of words like “fight for our state and country”, “those who will protect freedom, equality, and life”, “proud to be American, and those who are inspired by our ideals and won’t deride them”, and “I will support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the right reasons, and I don’t care what party they’re in or no party at all”. To read Lifson’s argument to its conclusion, Palin might be referring to either Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell’s transition into her soon-to-be-former office and her upcoming transition onto the national arena, or her new leadership of a political movement that might elect a Republican to the White House. Speaking personally, I may not necessarily mind whatever Palin does at this point. I will support her insofar as she can continue explaining why private enterprise and strong national security will reinforce this country… including a missile defense grid.:

Hot Air: Ed Morrissey: North Korea supplies fireworks on 4th
Hot Air: Ed Morrissey: North Korean-Burmese alliance grows closer

If setting off ballistic missiles is bad enough, then it certainly can’t help Kim Jong-Il that he’s picking American holidays on which to shoot those missiles into the skies above, say, Japan – or transforming Burma into a client state. I remember compiling an essay a few months ago about one Aung San Suu Kyi, who’s been using nonviolent resistance to bring the plight of her country under its ruling junta to the world’s attention, so I have to assume that Kim’s outreach to Burma’s generals will only worsen that tyranny while also giving Kim more money for more weapons, whether conventional or unconventional. On the other hand, Morrissey writes, a blockade will force Kim to either return to those six-party talks… or attempt to invade South Korea. I’ve tried imagining the second scenario a few times in the past, and more often than not, it ended with a decimated Korean People’s Army. Obama should do very, very well in keeping that missile defense technology in place around Hawaii, thus persuading Kim to stick with Scuds rather than launch Taepo-dongs.

 

[BigLutz]

Do we need a second stimulus? That seems to be the question that is being asked everywhere right now. The first one was billed as saving the economy, that if we didn't do it, we would be heading to Unemployment over 9%, that it would immediately start producing jobs....

We all know that was a lie, the money was horribly mismanaged, Unemployment is now heading to 10 with a possibility of 11%, and so the question is asked. Do we need another stimulus?

The White House seems split on it, Democrats are whispering about it, and the Public says no by a radical margin. But if not another stimulus what do we do? More tax cuts? Let the economy ride itself out and pray that the stupidity from the first Stimulus doesn't kill us with Inflation? As Warren Buffet now says, we are not in a free fall, but we are not recovering either.

 

[ccangelopearl1362]

Fox News Channel: Administration, Top Democrats Send Mixed on Second Stimulus
Heritage Foundation: A Third Stimulus? Don’t Repeat the Same Failures

Wow. The confusion among the Democrats this time around may leave this political junkie’s head spinning. Laura D’Andrea Tyson must not have gotten a memo from President Obama that this new stimulus would be unnecessary because she referenced it while speaking in Singapore, and Robert Gibbs appears to want to keep Obama’s options as they are, in that they’re neither ruling anything out nor ruling anything in. This will be Obama’s second stimulus project, if we can even call it that, but if Warren Buffett is correct, then America is stuck in the middle of this downturn. I may be willing to go with currency confidence, decreases in income tax rates, and suspension of all climate change efforts that involve any business taxes “now or in the future”, but how far would Obama’s supporters be willing to have him pursue such a course? In fact, even some Democrats may be starting to peel away from Obama if they’re following the pattern set by… independents.:

Hot Air: Ed Morrissey: Whom do you trust?

The numbers within that new Rasmussen poll seem interesting enough, divided along such categories as gender, age, and income. While men are going Republican 52-38%, women are leaning Democratic by… 43-42%, “a statistical dead heat”. In terms of national security threats, North Korea, China, and Iran got the biggest mentions, but North Korea remains on top for the second month in a row. Hopefully, those protests continue making Iran’s new military regime less of a threat to us for the immediate future, but that could change at any time… for the worse.