[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Mar 8 2009, 06:37 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 7 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Mar 6 2009, 11:05 PM, said:

This ranks right up there with the latest Andy Rooney hoax speech that is going around.

What's the Andy Rooney hoax speech?

i don't know, but i doubt they have rooney on youtube giving his hoax speech

No one is disputing that Obama made the statement in question.
Most of us simply don't care since we consider the statement a non issue...

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Mar 8 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

Actually my main quarrel with the style of what is currently coming from Obama and company is the constant comparison they feel that they have to make with policies of the past. The election is over, they won, they will be judged by what they accomplish, not by how different it is from the past. I wish them, and us, the very best.

True, the Obama administration will be judged on its accomplishments. But I think it fair to bring up the past whenever the alternatives offered by the loyal opposition have failed spectacularly in the past.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 8 2009, 06:37 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 7 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Mar 6 2009, 11:05 PM, said:

This ranks right up there with the latest Andy Rooney hoax speech that is going around.

What's the Andy Rooney hoax speech?

i don't know, but i doubt they have rooney on youtube giving his hoax speech

No one is disputing that Obama made the statement in question.
Most of us simply don't care since we consider the statement a non issue...

there's a big difference between thinking it a non-issue (and to me it's obviously not) and using the word "hoax" when discussing it

[Elianna]

Lobowolf, on Mar 7 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Mar 6 2009, 11:05 PM, said:

This ranks right up there with the latest Andy Rooney hoax speech that is going around.

What's the Andy Rooney hoax speech?

I don't know specifically what "the hoax" is, but there are a bunch of emails going around claiming he said certain things. And some are true, and some are not:

http://www.snopes.co...pbox.asp#rooney

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on Mar 8 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

kenberg, on Mar 8 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

Actually my main quarrel with the style of what is currently coming from Obama and company is the constant comparison they feel that they have to make with policies of the past. The election is over, they won, they will be judged by what they accomplish, not by how different it is from the past. I wish them, and us, the very best.

True, the Obama administration will be judged on its accomplishments. But I think it fair to bring up the past whenever the alternatives offered by the loyal opposition have failed spectacularly in the past.

Fair maybe. I see it as lacking in class. Such things can come back to haunt him.

Secretary Clinton tells us how happy the Russians are with the new administration. This makes me uneasy. Maybe she also looked into Putin's soul? She says how happy the Europeans are. This is naive. President Obama tells us how he will be doing economic things correctly rather than the stupid way they were dome in the past. I hope so. Buddy can you spare a dime.


Asking for selflessness and bipartisanship is unrealistic. Otoh, not going out of your way to insult Republicans is just common sense. I imagine some of those guys actually have some thoughtful ideas.

Yes I know that Bush and company acted like total jerks when they were in power. That also was a mistake.

[mike777]

When stockmarkets go down, or huge companies lose billions or go bankrupt...the "free capital markets" are working....not failing......

Note this means that those who have capital are fleeing those "losing investments" to invest in "money making investments."

1)IF we need more government in the economy...ok.........just tell us why?..
2) If we need less risk in the economy ..ok....why less?

Please note if you really believe we need more government and less risk in the economy.....you may be correct but why?

In other words....government decides where the capital flows SHOULD GO not private capital


As I said in other threads should the same guy who holds POLITICAL POWER also decide where ECONOMIC POWER, capital flows should go......

The answer may be YES.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Secretary Clinton tells us how happy the Russians are with the new administration. This makes me uneasy. Maybe she also looked into Putin's soul? She says how happy the Europeans are. This is naive. President Obama tells us how he will be doing economic things correctly rather than the stupid way they were dome in the past. I hope so. Buddy can you spare a dime.

The reasons why the Medvedev / Putin government is so popular in Russia is because after the terrible 90s, Putin really pulled the cart out of the mud. Russia has gone from a country to be pitied to a country with power under Putin. Russians are proud of these, which is why most whose situation has not improved much will still vote for Putin: They believe in a strong Russia and that this will soon bring prosperity to them, even if they don't have it yet.

Of course one can and should sharply criticize the regime for how it treats opponents, but I guess that Medvedev would have won the elections even without tricks.

[kenberg]

Gerben42, on Mar 9 2009, 03:27 AM, said:

Quote

Secretary Clinton tells us how happy the Russians are with the new administration. This makes me uneasy. Maybe she also looked into Putin's soul? She says how happy the Europeans are. This is naive. President Obama tells us how he will be doing economic things correctly rather than the stupid way they were dome in the past. I hope so. Buddy can you spare a dime.

The reasons why the Medvedev / Putin government is so popular in Russia is because after the terrible 90s, Putin really pulled the cart out of the mud. Russia has gone from a country to be pitied to a country with power under Putin. Russians are proud of these, which is why most whose situation has not improved much will still vote for Putin: They believe in a strong Russia and that this will soon bring prosperity to them, even if they don't have it yet.

Of course one can and should sharply criticize the regime for how it treats opponents, but I guess that Medvedev would have won the elections even without tricks.

This emotional orientation of the Russian people makes sense to me. I believe in a strong United States, I assume Iranians believe in a strong Iran and so on. I try hard to keep in mind that a great deal of harm can come from such an orientation whether from Russians, Iranians or the US.

I try to keep a sense of humor about nationalist vanities. Example: After Iran took American hostages during Carter's presidency, all the Iranians I knew began describing themselves as Persians. I imagine they figured that most Americans wouldn't know the connection and I imagine they were right. Example: I became fairly close to a guy from the Netherlands who was visiting the States for a year. His list of complaints about the US seemed unending. But then somehow we got to talking about France. Good grief, the guy was even more critical of the French than he was of Americans. Very revealing and amusing.

Anyway,while I cannot really follow Will Rogers and say that I never met a man I didn't like, I mostly find people interesting and I hope our governments can work together for our common good. I think Ms. Clinton sometimes sounds as if she was born yesterday but she wasn't, so maybe it will all work out.


I guess the above is pretty bland but I'm a bland sort of guy.

[ASkolnick]

I agree that FOX is biased to the right, however to say CNN and NPR is not slanted towards the left is not true. However, there are many more extreme cases than these news channels. Actually, the most balance perspective I usually get about news is this forum since you get the following:

A person makes a comment from one perspective.
Several people either agreeing or disagreeing in this forum, trying to back them up with facts.
Since not everyone is American here, it also allows someone to give a view as an outsider.

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 8 2009, 06:37 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 7 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Mar 6 2009, 11:05 PM, said:

This ranks right up there with the latest Andy Rooney hoax speech that is going around.

What's the Andy Rooney hoax speech?

i don't know, but i doubt they have rooney on youtube giving his hoax speech

No one is disputing that Obama made the statement in question.

Perhaps a definition of "hoax" with which I'm not familiar was being used.

[jdonn]

ASkolnick, on Mar 9 2009, 09:36 AM, said:

I agree that FOX is biased to the right, however to say CNN and NPR is not slanted towards the left is not true.

Could you please elaborate, other than to say it is so? Is this based on public opinion?

[luke warm]

kenberg, on Mar 8 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 8 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

kenberg, on Mar 8 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

Actually my main quarrel with the style of what is currently coming from Obama and company is the constant comparison they feel that they have to make with policies of the past. The election is over, they won, they will be judged by what they accomplish, not by how different it is from the past. I wish them, and us, the very best.

True, the Obama administration will be judged on its accomplishments. But I think it fair to bring up the past whenever the alternatives offered by the loyal opposition have failed spectacularly in the past.

Fair maybe. I see it as lacking in class. Such things can come back to haunt him.

Secretary Clinton tells us how happy the Russians are with the new administration.

well they should be, although you'd have expected a more positive reaction to obama's plan to halt part of the missile defense system in exchange for their (!!) help with iran... russia nixed that idea, i think

probably a wingnut site, per josh, since it has ads

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Mar 9 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

probably a wingnut site, per josh, since it has ads

Not that many. Btw I appreciate the humility after I already admitted it didn't mean what I thought it meant. No one knows sarcasm better than I do.

Interestingly, I should add, it seems the claim made in the article you link to as well as in your post is denied by both Obama and Russia. At least that is the fair and balanced viewpoint.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Mar 9 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 9 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

probably a wingnut site, per josh, since it has ads

Not that many. Btw I appreciate the humility after I already admitted it didn't mean what I thought it meant. No one knows sarcasm better than I do.

Interestingly, I should add, it seems the claim made in the article you link to as well as in your post is denied by both Obama and Russia. At least that is the fair and balanced viewpoint.

well you can understand the post's, and my, confusion over all of this when his own people seem to have been equally as confused... from your link

"Senior U.S. administration officials previously suggested there was a trade-off in the letter, which they said hinted that plans for the defense shield could be unnecessary if Russian President Dmitry Medvedev helped in blocking Iran's progress toward building long-range missiles."

now obama seems to be saying that the missile system, in the czech republic and poland, was always for iran, not russia... that would explain russia's anger over it, i suppose... anyway, i'm sure it'll all work out now that he and hillary have hit the reset button

[jdonn]

Some Obama officials anonymously made a claim about Obama and Russia. Obama and Russia both denied the claim when they found out about it. You happened to provide a link that was likely written in between the claim being made and the denial being made.

If you find that sequence of events confusing then I think you need a type of help that I am not qualified to offer.

[luke warm]

josh, "senior administration officials" usually means someone fairly high in the administration... in any event, you (and everyone else) can read what the post published and read obama's response and make up your own minds... personally it makes perfect sense to me that the missile defense shield was never meant for russia but for iran...

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Mar 10 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

personally it makes perfect sense to me that the missile defense shield was never meant for russia but for iran...

Me too. I didn't realize that was a point of disagreement. I thought this discussion was about whether Obama had essentially offered Russia a quid pro quo: Russia helps us with Iran, we don't put up missile defense system. I understand that Obama has claimed all along the system was because of Iran, not Russia (perhaps that's different from what Bush claimed. I'm not sure.)

[luke warm]

well i did find this post from an old bbc article

"But Moscow insists that the installation of US missiles in countries close to its western border would change the strategic balance in Europe.

Lt Gen Vladimir Popovkin, commander of Russia's space forces, said Moscow would interpret the move as a military threat.

"Our analysis shows that the deployment of a radar station in the Czech Republic and a counter-missile position in Poland are an obvious threat to us.

"It is very doubtful that elements of the national US missile defence system in eastern Europe were aimed at Iranian missiles, as has been stated," he said.

Moscow has warned of "negative consequences" if Prague agrees to host the missile system."

this was about the proposed sites in poland and the czech republic

here's another one from last summer where russia threatened a military response if we went ahead as planned... i don't know why they'd be upset that we'd want to protect our allies from iran

[mike777]

As Nato moves into eastern europe or in Asia closer to China(nato/afghanistan) it is only fair that Russia and China be allowed to move bases/nukes/bombers/rockets into Cuba and Mexico.

As for Iran and nukes, still fail to see why Iran cannot have Nukes and sell them to whoever they wish. They need to eat also. If the Taliban can be less than 100 miles from the capital of Pakistan, who have nukes, why not Iran?

If we really want to stop making people angry at the very least we can withdraw and bring our troops and Navy home from Asia and Europe and the Pacific Ocean and spend the savings on that tent city in Sacramento Calif.

As for the biased media.....see Thomas Paine and his ilk.....

[luke warm]

mike777, on Mar 10 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

As Nato moves into eastern europe or in Asia closer to China(nato/afghanistan) it is only fair that Russia and China be allowed to move bases/nukes/bombers/rockets into Cuba and Mexico.

i agree... with the world as it is now, fairness should be the goal... nat'l interests are so passe`