Originally posted by psmith81992
Made a show? You're kidding right? That's like saying "well Obama [b]said he wants to close down Gitmo!". All Obama has proven is that he's Bush lite with even less of a grasp on economics than Dubya.[/b]
The recession is pretty much a response from Bush's presidency, so I'm not sure why you're attempting to paint Obama in such a bad light. In any case, Obama made promises to return troops home, because he knows that America is weary of war. Bush, comparatively, made us attack every mudhut and cave in the Middle-East to find a boogey man who didn't die until Obama was in office.
Just like Bill Clinton is thought of as the paragon of humankind by the Democrats.
Lolwut.
What's your point? Obama's foreign policies have been as effective as you would expect from a party who truly believes that everything can have a peaceful solution, that you can always solve an issue by talking.
Not everything can have a peaceful solution, which is why Zero Dark Thirty is not a movie about Skyping Osama bin Laden and asking him to please stop.
As opposed to doing nothing, which would psychologically empower Russian and Chinese leaders to commit even more atrocities?
I didn't realize making Russia's economy tank and alienating them from the modern world was doing nothing. I guess something would be boots on the ground?
And the Chinese are in favor of diplomacy in this situation and have been. They're not particularly thrilled at acts of aggression on behalf of North Korea or Russia, despite nominally being their allies. While I'm sure stomping on Putin's neck would deter them a bit, it could just as easily spur them on out of paranoia and fear. There's a lot of speculation going on here.
As ballsy as Putin is, I think if we followed through, he would back down.
Really? Any particular reason why?
It's never been a pipe dream, it's been the standard for international politics since WWI.
Funny, it wasn't Reagan's hard line which undid the USSR; it was its own failed economy and infrastructure.
Not to mention, "not blinking" and "chess game" aren't mutually exclusive.
Usually games of chess are determined by raw skill, forethought, and manipulation of the pieces, not by metaphorical games of chicken.
In any case, the idea that we should do more is common for Republic rhetoric, but the Republicans can never show an instance when such diplomatic methods actually succeeded. At the very least, they devolve into unpopular intervention or outright war.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The recession is pretty much a response from Bush's presidency, so I'm not sure why you're attempting to paint Obama in such a bad light. In any case, Obama made promises to return troops home, because he knows that America is weary of war. Bush, comparatively, made us attack every mudhut and cave in the Middle-East to find a boogey man who didn't die until Obama was in office.
I didn't realize making Russia's economy tank and alienating them from the modern world was doing nothing. I guess something would be boots on the ground?
Really? Any particular reason why?
Funny, it wasn't Reagan's hard line which undid the USSR; it was its own failed economy and infrastructure.
Usually games of chess are determined by raw skill, forethought, and manipulation of the pieces, not by metaphorical games of chicken.
In any case, the idea that we should do more is common for Republic rhetoric, but the Republicans can never show an instance when such diplomatic methods actually succeeded. At the very least, they devolve into unpopular intervention or outright war. [/B]
Originally posted by psmith81992
Lol, so your argument is "Obama made promises"?
Obama has not made his presidency about unnecessary or questionable wars; Bush has. Keep your head on straight.
Nevermind the fact that he's ignored oh what, 90% of them?
I love the double standard though. Obama gets the credit for being the president at the time of Bin Laden's death, but he somehow doesn't get the blame for the continued recession.
That's kind of the point; Bush's entire billions upon billions dollar idea was to stomp out terrorism (a timeless epidemic) and Bin Laden (who he failed to find during his presidency). So you admit technically that Bush's wars were pointless, and Obama made overtures to conclude them, and in some cases, actually did bring things to a close?
Good.
Glad to hear it. His economic acumen is as good as Bush's.
Funny, things seem better than they did in 2008-2009.
Think we tried that during the Cold War. It took about 40 years.
The situations are not the same. Russia's economy is tied intrinsically to the rest of the world, and the information age prevents complete blackouts. Another Soviet-style famine couldn't go as easily ignored.
Because I think Putin is overextending himself, and he has a case of small penis syndrome. You call him on it, he'll back down.
So you think; therefore, it is? Or do you have some kind of evidence to support this assertion?
With a lot of help from the CIA, as well as Reagan's good relationship with Gorbachev. Give credit where credit's due.
Actually, it was mostly the failed economy leading to reforms, the large number of non-ethnic Russians who didn't want to assimilate, and the general idiocy that is Russian communism pushing things in the direction of a down-ward spiral. Individuals like Reagan and Gorbachev couldn't have benefited in a situation where Russia had a strong economy, because it would be less susceptible to change.
The Cold War...?
Relevance?
They've succeeded a lot more than "let's talk!"
When specifically?
[b]In any case, Obama made promises to return troops home, because he knows that America is weary of war. Bush, comparatively, made us attack every mudhut and cave in the Middle-East to find a boogey man who didn't die until Obama was in office.[b]
That's kind of the point; Bush's entire billions upon billions dollar idea was to stomp out terrorism (a timeless epidemic) and Bin Laden (who he failed to find during his presidency). So you admit technically that Bush's wars were pointless, and Obama made overtures to conclude them, and in some cases, actually did bring things to a close?
Funny, things seem better than they did in 2008-2009.
The situations are not the same. Russia's economy is tied intrinsically to the rest of the world, and the information age prevents complete blackouts. Another Soviet-style famine couldn't go as easily ignored.
So you think; therefore, it is? Or do you have some kind of evidence to support this assertion?
Funny coming from someone who just stated:
Funny, things seem better than they did in 2008-2009.
Actually, it was mostly the failed economy leading to reforms, the large number of non-ethnic Russians who didn't want to assimilate, and the general idiocy that is Russian communism pushing things in the direction of a down-ward spiral. Individuals like Reagan and Gorbachev couldn't have benefited in a situation where Russia had a strong economy, because it would be less susceptible to change.
Originally posted by psmith81992
The only argument that could be extrapolated from that post is that Obama made promises to "return troops home", whereas Bush=war. Where's the strawman?
I quoted it for you. Reading is fun-da-mental.
I admit that Bush's wars weren't 100% pointless but did more harm than good, and then Obama continued the exact same thing. Glad we're on the same page.
Ah, nope.
Oh, I'm glad you have something tangible to back this up. Let me guess, when we were facing economic collapse during Obama's first 4 years, it was Bush's fault.
Unless you believe that Obama caused the housing bubble and general economic ruin by being in the White House for less than a year, yeah. That's the natural conclusion.
But if by some chance things get better (no actual statistics that this is happening), it's all Obama! Glad you're consistent with your double standards.
I was pointing out the inherent flaw in your reasoning; that the economic depression was not a direct result of Obama's "economic acumen", but is instead attributable to the Bush administration.
Again, unless you think that Obama KO'd the budget before he broke in the leather on his office chair.
That's assuming there is a soviet style famine.
Actually, a Soviet-style famine is one possibility in an isolated Russian economy. It's extreme, and won't happen next month, but Russia cannot necessarily remain indifferent to all sanctions. As it is now, Russian business execs are shitting their snowpants over the barely 20 sanctions in place because the mood of the market has shifted into chaos.
None of the current sanctions indicate this is likely to happen.
No, but Russia wasn't swimming with prosperity as it was. Sochi was a prime example of that, although anyone who took a Moscow subway could tell you the same. In any case, hurting their pocketbook has the effect of avoiding direct confrontation and undermining their stability, both of which are preferable to the 'offensive' measure you still haven't related.
Funny coming from someone who just stated:
So things are the same now economically as they were in 2008-2009? The interest rates look a bit better. Jobs do too.
It wasn't a failed economy because their "failed economy" existed during and after WWII.
It was inherently flawed. There's no argument on this.
Gorbachev contributed greatly because he wanted the Soviet Union to abandon communism. His greatest failing is that he didn't have an idea what to replace Communism with, which is why Yeltsin ousted him. No, communism didn't end when Reagan said "tear down this wall", but he contributed to it.
And you're missing the point; a 'no blink' approach didn't single-handedly undo the Soviet engine; it was its own bloated failings. Reagan and Gorbachev both benefited from the social climate perpetuated by a failing economy, ethnic unrest, and a relatively static Communist party.
Stay on topic.
Again, if you're giving credit to Obama for Bin Laden's death because it was on his watch, then you have to extend the same credit to Reagan. Otherwise, I'll keep accusing you of double standards.
So let's make sure we're clear on things:
[list][*]Bush instigated the wars, and is more responsible for them than Obama, who inherited the mess.
[*] Obama is not a savior of the economy, but Bush pretty much drove it into the ground.
[*] Obama is not weak for refusing to do something stupid to 'save face' against the bad guys, who don't care about Americans regardless of how tough we appear in the gym lockerroom or how large our political penis may be. Bush's strength was shown by steamrolling Iraq who fell in three weeks and then became embroiled in an assymetric war, then going into Afghanistan and doing the same thing, costing tax payers about 1-6 trillion dollars, depending on which source is approximating.
[*] You don't have anything bad to say about Republicans, but liberals/Democrats always catch flak from you. Cuz awesome.[/list]
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I quoted it for you. Reading is fun-da-mental.
Ah, nope.
Unless you believe that Obama caused the housing bubble and general economic ruin by being in the White House for less than a year, yeah. That's the natural conclusion.
I was pointing out the inherent flaw in your reasoning; that the economic depression was not a direct result of Obama's "economic acumen", but is instead attributable to the Bush administration.
Again, unless you think that Obama KO'd the budget before he broke in the leather on his office chair.
Actually, a Soviet-style famine is one possibility in an isolated Russian economy. It's extreme, and won't happen next month, but Russia cannot necessarily remain indifferent to all sanctions. As it is now, Russian business execs are shitting their snowpants over the barely 20 sanctions in place because the mood of the market has shifted into chaos.
No, but Russia wasn't swimming with prosperity as it was. Sochi was a prime example of that, although anyone who took a Moscow subway could tell you the same. In any case, hurting their pocketbook has the effect of avoiding direct confrontation and undermining their stability, both of which are preferable to the 'offensive' measure you still haven't related.
So things are the same now economically as they were in 2008-2009? The interest rates look a bit better. Jobs do too.
And you're missing the point; a 'no blink' approach didn't single-handedly undo the Soviet engine; it was its own bloated failings. Reagan and Gorbachev both benefited from the social climate perpetuated by a failing economy, ethnic unrest, and a relatively static Communist party.
[list][*]Bush instigated the wars, and is more responsible for them than Obama, who inherited the mess.
[*] Obama is not a savior of the economy, but Bush pretty much drove it into the ground.
[*] Obama is not weak for refusing to do something stupid to 'save face' against the bad guys, who don't care about Americans regardless of how tough we appear in the gym lockerroom or how large our political penis may be. Bush's strength was shown by steamrolling Iraq who fell in three weeks and then became embroiled in an assymetric war, then going into Afghanistan and doing the same thing, costing tax payers about 1-6 trillion dollars, depending on which source is approximating.
[*] You don't have anything bad to say about Republicans, but liberals/Democrats always catch flak from you. Cuz awesome.[/list]
Considering your 3rd strawman and your continuous double standards, I find this amusing. Not to mention, it also ignores my premise, where I called Bush incompetent repeatedly and said he was mostly responsible for the economic collapse. But no, keep up the double standards and don't bother appearing objective.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
FFS, learn to format.And the whole "I assert it; therefore it is true" is tiresome.
So things are the same now economically as they were in 2008-2009? The interest rates look a bit better. Jobs do too.
You don't have anything bad to say about Republicans, but liberals/Democrats always catch flak from you. Cuz awesome.
You're right.. It is tiresome. Also, on cell phone.
'Looks a bit better' holds water in light of the only evidence on the table. If you're asserting the opposite, feel free to prove up. Job numbers might not be as clear, since given the benefit of the doubt, it could just as easily have gone down with people ceasing to look for work instead of being put back to work.
But you haven't proven your assertion about Obama's inferior economic acumen in relation to Bush, which is the point.
2. Ignoring the obvious (that you're a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican), you always hate on Obama and sometimes even blame him for shit outside of his control but ignore the hubris perpetuated by Bush and his administration. Why is this?
But you haven't proven your assertion about Obama's inferior economic acumen in relation to Bush, which is the point.
2. Ignoring the obvious (that you're a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican), you always hate on Obama and sometimes even blame him for shit outside of his control but ignore the hubris perpetuated by Bush and his administration. Why is this? [/B]
Ignoring the obvious (that you're a hardcore liberal), you call me out for hating on Obama ONCE in a while, give him credit when something good happens, blame "outside sources" when something bad happens, use different standards for Republican presidents and genuinely dislike Republicans, why is that? I may not be very objective, but I have proven to be more objective than you. Your entire argument consists of either hypocrisy or double standards.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Using your double standards, Bush last year as president (2008) was far better than anything Obama has done.