On foreign policy, he argues for greater international cooperation and the aggressive use of diplomacy. He sees a world in which America doesn't have to fight with everyone, and should instead work with other countries to solve the common problems we all face.
Well, from BHO's own website, I found this from his speech last year at the Wilson Center:
Quote:
taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Later in the speech, this:
Quote:
There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
OK, I give up, which one is it? Fight or Flee? Pakistan and Iran are the next President's biggest foreign policy challenges, PERIOD. Barack seem to want it two ways: talk with Iran, fight with Pakistan. Talking with Iran over nukes has gone NOWHERE in the last 3 years, BTW. Fighting with Pakistan is, as yet, untested.
And how does he know there are terrorists hiding in Afghanistan? If he does has he shared this intell with the US military?
If there is anything worse than Bush's unilateral self-confidence in US power, it will be a President who is easily bluffed-that starts wars. I refer you to JFK and Cuba
Those who want a more bracing view of a BHO foreign policy, read Ralph Peters here. One of the most experienced and widely traveled old intell hands. On par with Robert Kaplan of The Atlantic.
GF
Last edited by galaxy flyer : 20th October 2008 at 23:54.
While attending a fund raiser in Seattle, Biden made some comments to the audience, unaware that the message was being recorded. It's causing a flurry of dialogue on local talk radio:
(Biden at fund raiser)
“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.” he told a fundraising crowd in the Pacific Northwest on Sunday. “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.” “He’s gonna have to make some really tough - I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen.”
He goes on to say some increasingly bizarre things, including an admonition to "gird up our loins," and that if you make sound decisions, "they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."
??????
Biden has some explaining to do. As a senator serving on the intelligence committee, privy to high level intel, how could he make such a statement loosely?
What's worse is that the liberal media here are doing nothing with his comments. If it had been Palin, there would be a frenzy of reporters demanding substantiation to such a serious message. They would be relentless.
But Biden is right, Obama will be tested in a way that McCain wouldn't be. He'll be tested the way Thatcher was during the Falklands war. An assumption will be made that because he is liberal and black that he won't react the way a hard right Republican would or even a woolly Republican like McCain.
Thatcher passed the test because whe wasn't so much a woman as a Conservative. The unanswered question for Obama is whether he is the president of the United States of Americia or a liberal black senator from Hawaii who happens to be president.
Time will tell.
My opinion: Being president changes you. He'll pass the test.
Note: I'm not being presumptive, Obama will be elected. The bookies have already paid out on that bet. Paddy Power bookmakers doesn't get it wrong very often and they just paid out a million quid to punters who bet on Obama.
Maybe when the odds are agin you, and you suspect you know what the real outcome will be, the best way to cut your losses is to pay out on Obama, so's no-one else lays any more bets on McCain.
Paddy Power bookmakers doesn't get it wrong very often and they just paid out a million quid to punters who bet on Obama.
My God, how can I place a bet with those idio......er savvy bookmakers. I have never, ever heard of a bookmaker, legal or illegal, paying off on an event before it happens, especially with over two weeks to go!
That is just plain insane, how on earth do they stay in business. That is like betting on a odds on favorite horse and the day before the race you get paid the money just as if the horse won. To be honest, I really don't believe it.
Well, BHO plans on a tax "cut"; leaving aside the fact that he really means welfare for people who behave the way he wants; so did Clinton.
This from the IHT on Jan 15, 1993, just before the Inauguration.
Quote:
By Paul F. HorvitzPublished: FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1993
WASHINGTON: Seeking to explain why he is backtracking on a campaign promise to cut taxes for the middle class, President-elect Bill Clinton said Thursday that the plan was never a major theme in his race for the White House.
Mr. Clinton, speaking at a news conference a day after saying he would have to "revisit" his tax-cut plan, said Americans voted for him because of the "big things" he wanted to do.
The middle-class tax cut, he said, was not among them.
He said he was "absolutely mystified" that the news media had perceived it as a major pledge. In interviews Wednesday, Mr. Clinton said that, because of worsening deficit projections,"I have to put everything back on the table."
Mr. Clinton spoke throughout the campaign of the need to redress declining middle-class incomes during the 1980s. He proposed a tax cut for the middle class nearly a year ago, in New Hampshire, and repeated the pledge frequently.
Any guesses as to how long BHO will hold to his tax "cuts" pledge? Any guesses as to how long he holds his tax increases to Clinton's rates of 39.6% and how long they kick in at $250,000? My guess: 50% at $125,000 AGI is on the table by Jun 1, 2009.
Anyone interested in actually understanding the mortgage crisis, as opposed to the standard lines of the left and right (deregulation or Fannie did it) should read this and this.
Pretty fascinating stuff from an economist who worked at Fannie Mae in the early '90s. I learned a lot and humbly admit it is far beyond the simplistic views of left and myself, on the right.
I don't know where you're from but I know why most private schools in Georgia were started.
I read and reread both my posts on this subject. I think I'm pretty clear. I think inner city public schools, were most minority children are forced to go, are pitiful, horribly perfoming disasters. It is not just my opinion, even Obama agrees. The difference is, the Republicans offer a solution, and the union-controlled democrats are in favor of status quo. I think that is shameful, and if you were honest with yourself, you would too.
I'm in favor of equal opportunity. I want those poor inner city children to have the same opportunites as rich white liberals' kids. That's why I'm in favor of school vouchers.
Since you asked, I'm from South Texas, born and raised on the border. The best schools were the Catholic schools, the worst were the public schools which were, in fact remain, pretty pitiful. Catholic schools were part charity, but needed money to operate. The vast majority of poor hispanic kids could not afford to attend, and therefore were relegated to the union controlled public schools.
Where I'm from, the democrats owned city councils, school boards, and unions, much like in inner cities. Money was not the problem, accounting for where the money goes is the problem. The poor hispanic kids, as always, were the victims of democratic and union policies.
Again, you don't address a direct question. You call it SOS, but don't offer solution. Are you in favor of helping these kids or not? What is your solution? Why not give vouchers, which have been proven to be effective, a try?
The thing that perplexes me is why, here in Australia, we are hammered on every news programme with happenings of the farcical circus called the U.S presidential elections. No one I spoke to could give a toss about it over here.
After a round of golf yesterday on one of Melbourne's finest sand belt courses I was sitting in the sun downing a few cold ones with my playing partners and raised the subject.
Concensus was that any result would be just like changing Captains on the Titanic-the U.S.A is totally f!@cked . Subject quickly passed over and more beverages ordered.
I would be interested to hear from people of other countries about whether or not they also receive saturation coverage of this event -and whether or not they could care less about it.
Concensus was that any result would be just like changing Captains on the Titanic-the U.S.A is totally f!@cked . Subject quickly passed over and more beverages ordered.
Believe me, on this side of the Pacific we are tired of this election cycle as well.
But hey, are you and your mates really that indifferent to the USA being, in your words, f!@cked?
Australia exported almost AU$5 billion of manufactured goods to the U.S. in 2007. Your services exports to the U.S. grew to more than AU$5.5 billion.
The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement has been good for both our countries, generating more than AU$48 billon in bilateral trade. That's lots of Aussie jobs created.
Just for the record, Obama has promised the unions that he will is review all existing trade agreements, and eliminate those that are not favorable to the unions. He appears to want a new era of protectionism and isolationism in our trade and foreign policy. If he wins, this job-creating trade between our two great nations is in jeopardy.
sort of agree however very interested to see whether (IMHO) Americans themselves can see the need to break the cycle, and the impression of negativity towards the US, created by 2 terms of GWB.
Remember - 1972 -Oz - Labor - "It's Time" - and so it was!
In no way saying either candidate is better/worse than the other (cynical enough to believe little can be achieved be either as President) but sometimes you need change for change sake.
Was always amazed GWB got second term - but appears simple explanation is that "in war" Americans don't throw out the incumbent.
So: who are the two candidates targeting as "their" wars to ensure their second terms (sadly Iraq war bit of a "hand me down" and not acceptable).
Matari
As above believe little will change between US and Oz regardless of the winner (or maybe grateful loser??), even the loonies in Oz accept (maybe deep, deep down and they prefer not to go there!) that should Oz ever need assistance the preferred country, and expected assistant, will be the US.
The thing that WILL knock trade adversely - if you don't start seriously improving your Idiot Box productions the TV channels in OZ might have to look at product elsewhere - then look at the BoP go haywire!
Seriously little will change regardless of the winner/loser IMHO as an Aussie - agreewith mr P there.
Two observations: in Oz, albeit speculation builds up but an election is announced and 4-5 weeks later completed. Finished. EOFS.
This idea of (OK not in this case but this is the US system) an incumbent uses a hell of a lot of time in his last 18 months to try and ensure his re-election sucks; as a taxpayer my question would be "do your job" and minimise distractions, 18 months of being "distracted" is not what I'm paying you for.
Secondly - apparently the Presidency can be bought (through advertising), or at least influenced heavily, by around $600m plus (a record, they say; one to be proud of???)
My God, how can I place a bet with those idio......er savvy bookmakers. I have never, ever heard of a bookmaker, legal or illegal, paying off on an event before it happens, especially with over two weeks to go!
Interestingly bookmakers have paid out early on occasion. One was caught out badly when they paid out just too early on a football team. But I don't think that'll happen this time.
They can't take bets you from Americans because of your laws (but if you have a friend in Europe!) but they are still offering odds on Obama and McCain. 1-10 Obama, 11-2 (5.5 -1)McCain. If you still think McCain can win, you can make a killing at those odds. They will take your money happily because they ain't no mugs. Their assessment as to the reason: The economy, stupid!
I did think at one point that McCain would win, not anymore.
Concensus was that any result would be just like changing Captains on the Titanic-the U.S.A is totally f!@cked
If true, I wouldn't want to be living elsewhere. The US imports about $1 trillion of goods and services, that's a lot of jobs everywhere. If 28% of the world's economy is f@**#d, it's a big bowl of hot, steaming not good.
Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930 started the Great Depression world-wide! And the US had a small portion of trade then.
Here's what one well-known "racist" African American says
Well, I still think McCain will win, corsair my honourable Irish friend, and I have said so from the start; in fact, since before the start, and I still stick to that even now.
If I'm wrong, well, let it be said, that I stayed with my bet over the entire course; and if I'm wrong, then, of course, God help us all.
And in the meantime, God Bless America, long may she reign, I tremble at the thought of seeing the world I have known, administered under any other conceivable order.
And in the meantime, God Bless America, long may she reign, I tremble at the thought of seeing the world I have known, administered under any other conceivable order.
When a Kiwi bleats longingly for the architects of our impending depression, its like my 13 year old Jack Russell Terrier barking support for the mental Rotty that walks by...does PPRuNe have a rolled up newspaper with duct tape (a provider of reality checks for insignificant canines...and countries?)?
I still can't believe that the majority of Americans are ready to accept the young and inexperienced but smooth talking Obama just yet.
I don't trust polls and I don't trust the political pundits employed by the press and TV, they have an agenda of their own.
If Obama does win then I suppose that all is left for us here on PPRuNe is a sweepstake on the calibre of the bullet.
the thing that 'amused' me most was the statement the 'racist american' said about sometimes people want change just to have change (or similar)
Seem to remember in 3rd debate McC clearly stated "..I am not GWB" ergo there will be a change.
HBO says outright there will be a change.
So who does your 'racist american' columnist see as maintaining the "no change" position ??
Neither of the candidates seem to think there won't be a change - or have I missed something??
Hey quite possible - trapped in all these land locked northern areas one tends to lack an understanding about...the rest of the globe.
If I'm wrong, well, let it be said, that I stayed with my bet over the entire course; and if I'm wrong, then, of course, God help us all.
I suppose the other way to look at it is that if you are wrong, you have stayed with a losing bet long past the stage it became a genuine loser, and you are a complete mug punter. Don't sit in here saying you told us so; go to https://www.sportsbet.com.au/sports/...EventID/692896 and put your money on McCain at $7.60.
Now there's an opportunity for a bright young capitalist.
), even the loonies in Oz accept (maybe deep, deep down and they prefer not to go there!) that should Oz ever need assistance the preferred country, and expected assistant, will be the US.
Linear Mode
