Stramash Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Have been following the Iranian elections on the news recently as it has defied my expectations of being merely a pr excercise by the Ayatollahs and actually seems to be displaying a spontaneous outbreak of democracy. Of course, the President of Iran wields far less power than the Supreme Leader, who has the power over foreign policy and nuclear issues, while the President is more in charge of domestic issues and budgets etc. Iranian TV while 100% supportive of Ahmadinejad prior to the campaign has given equal air time to all 4 candidates. The strongest opposition to Ahmadinejad has come from Mousavi, former Prime Minister of Irtan from '81 to '89 and determined to combat Iran's extremist image abroad. There has been open non violent confrontations betweeen the supportes of both men, turning streets into open air crowded debating chambers, and Mousavi seems to be gaining speed as the campaign has come to a climax. He especially has support among the younger generations and he is supportive of greater personal freedoms and of raising the ban on private TV stations. He does however support the continuation of the Iranian nuclear programme. Surprisiongly, the conservative Ahmadinejad has managed to alienate many of the Iranian clerics, and unsurprisingly, has lost the plot a bit in the final days of the campaign, accusing his opponents of plotting with Israel to falsify documents against him!!! It will be interesting to see whether Mousavi will win, and, if he does, just what steps he will take, and will be allowed to take, to reform Iran. There certainly seems a modernist mood of optimism on the streets of Tehran, a mood that many commentators have in part attributed to Obama's success in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 He does however support the continuation of the Iranian nuclear programme. With the US rattling sabres in the general direction of Iran, telling the "axis of evil" countries to stay away from nukes or else, and hoarding 1000's of neucular weapons themselves, I can't imagine anyone getting much of the vote in Iran without backing the nuclear programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 My opinion is that Iran has the same "right" to Nukes as every other country that has them. The more countries that have them and especially the more "non-Democratic" countries that have them, the greater the danger of extremist or violent regimes, groups and sub-groups getting their hands on Nukes. Imagine a Nuclear Hezbollah or a Nuclear Hamas or al Qaeda. Imagine a Nuclear Red Army Faction or Sein Fein (sp?) back in the 80s/90s. The possibility is always there for tragedy. And we humans love our tragedy. Iran was heading towards democracy prior to the 50s when the Brits begged the US to take out Mossadegh. I have hopes that eventually Iran will return to that path. The US is hardly saber rattling towards Iran at this moment. We are doing nothing more than the inept and greedy EU at this point in time. Were I in charge. I'd step back completely. Normalize relations with Iran on our side. Tell Big Business to do as they will at their own risk and let events take their natural course. The Iranians/Persians are a great people. We should be allies. Not enemies. But, thanks to Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill and the greed of the British Oil Business and their heavy handedness and unwillingness to treat fairly with the Iranian people as well as the gullibility of the Dulles Brothers and Ike, we have a wide and deep chasm of distrust between our Nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 There certainly seems a modernist mood of optimism on the streets of Tehran, a mood that many commentators have in part attributed to Obama's success in the US. I dont even understand why Obama is trying to engender a mood of optimism in the US that is based on sand, he is only going to disappoint. His own forecasts for economic growth of nearly 4.0%p.a. for the US in real terms between 2011 - 2014 have no valid justification and assume a miracle. The US according to Alan Greenspan didnt grow at all between 2000 and 2006 if you exclude mortgage equity withdrawals from homes pumped into the economy. And that was with private sector debt growing rapidly. Now that it isnt likely and banks dont really want to lend other than to finance the fiscal deficit, there is no reason to see any growth at all apart from a restock bounce over the next 9 months. He will only have made a fool out of himself with his optimism. Far better to have come in and blamed Bush and Greenspan (who admits gearing up the economy to the asset bubble) come out with low forecasts and then taking credit for doing better. Here's the Greenspan confession to the Fed Reserve Board in 2007. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2007/200720/200720pap.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I agree with robbie36. Obama and his hope for the economy is looking more and more like a dream not reality. There is some relieve in the housing market but home owners are still losing homes and its not easy to borrow to buy a house in the US. And no one wants to spend money since all classes have lost so much of their savings in the big swan dive of the 401ks. People are learning how to save, get by ,do without. Good things but not good for growth in a credit fed economic bubble we have been living in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJack Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 My opinion is that Iran has the same "right" to Nukes as every other country that has them.The more countries that have them and especially the more "non-Democratic" countries that have them, the greater the danger of extremist or violent regimes, groups and sub-groups getting their hands on Nukes. Imagine a Nuclear Hezbollah or a Nuclear Hamas or al Qaeda. Imagine a Nuclear Red Army Faction or Sein Fein (sp?) back in the 80s/90s. The possibility is always there for tragedy. And we humans love our tragedy. Iran was heading towards democracy prior to the 50s when the Brits begged the US to take out Mossadegh. I have hopes that eventually Iran will return to that path. The US is hardly saber rattling towards Iran at this moment. We are doing nothing more than the inept and greedy EU at this point in time. Were I in charge. I'd step back completely. Normalize relations with Iran on our side. Tell Big Business to do as they will at their own risk and let events take their natural course. The Iranians/Persians are a great people. We should be allies. Not enemies. But, thanks to Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill and the greed of the British Oil Business and their heavy handedness and unwillingness to treat fairly with the Iranian people as well as the gullibility of the Dulles Brothers and Ike, we have a wide and deep chasm of distrust between our Nations. except for the hostages in 1978, and the current leader who is shouting for anihiliation of Israel and other fanatical insanities.... sure its the authentic leadership, democratically elected (except there is widespread accusations of voting fraud). its facile to look at the mistakes of the past and apply the correctness to the present. present day circumstances need to be viewed and weighed heavier. And there are massive reasons why Iran should not have nuclear capabilities. they sit on some of the worlds largest oil reserves. why do they need nuclear power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 My opinion is that Iran has the same "right" to Nukes as every other country that has them.The more countries that have them and especially the more "non-Democratic" countries that have them, the greater the danger of extremist or violent regimes, groups and sub-groups getting their hands on Nukes. Imagine a Nuclear Hezbollah or a Nuclear Hamas or al Qaeda. Imagine a Nuclear Red Army Faction or Sein Fein (sp?) back in the 80s/90s. The possibility is always there for tragedy. And we humans love our tragedy. Iran was heading towards democracy prior to the 50s when the Brits begged the US to take out Mossadegh. I have hopes that eventually Iran will return to that path. The US is hardly saber rattling towards Iran at this moment. We are doing nothing more than the inept and greedy EU at this point in time. Were I in charge. I'd step back completely. Normalize relations with Iran on our side. Tell Big Business to do as they will at their own risk and let events take their natural course. The Iranians/Persians are a great people. We should be allies. Not enemies. But, thanks to Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill and the greed of the British Oil Business and their heavy handedness and unwillingness to treat fairly with the Iranian people as well as the gullibility of the Dulles Brothers and Ike, we have a wide and deep chasm of distrust between our Nations. except for the hostages in 1978, and the current leader who is shouting for anihiliation of Israel and other fanatical insanities.... sure its the authentic leadership, democratically elected (except there is widespread accusations of voting fraud). its facile to look at the mistakes of the past and apply the correctness to the present. present day circumstances need to be viewed and weighed heavier. And there are massive reasons why Iran should not have nuclear capabilities. they sit on some of the worlds largest oil reserves. why do they need nuclear power? Jack said they have the "right" in the first paragraph then in the second went on to say why it would be a bad idea. Then a rehash of the history of the region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeGeneve Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 And there are massive reasons why Iran should not have nuclear capabilities. they sit on some of the worlds largest oil reserves. why do they need nuclear power? I am not an advocate of nuclear power but what does having large energy reserves got to do with seeking alternative sources of powering a country? Especially in a Climate Change context where the nuclear industry is trying to reinvigorate itself by selling nuclear power plants as climate change friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie36 Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I agree with robbie36. Obama and his hope for the economy is looking more and more like a dream not reality. There is some relieve in the housing market but home owners are still losing homes and its not easy to borrow to buy a house in the US. And no one wants to spend money since all classes have lost so much of their savings in the big swan dive of the 401ks. People are learning how to save, get by ,do without. Good things but not good for growth in a credit fed economic bubble we have been living in. The reason for this is simple. The Fed through zero short term rates has engendered inflationary expectations which on a 10 year note have risen from 0% to 2% in the last 3 months. So 3 months ago, people might have expected property prices to fall a lot further and now they dont. The problem with the policy is that it is raising medium and long term rates at an alarming rate - the yield curve is the steepest it has ever been. Mortgage rates are rising rapidly..... http://mortgage-x.com/x/ratesweekly.asp 70 basis points in six weeks... The 10 year UST has gone from 2.06% to 3.86%, almost doubled, in a couple of months, This will get reflected in mortgage rates. The policy is entirely deliberate and standard procedure. Intervene at the short end to keep rates zero. This means deposit rates are close to zero as depositors deposit short term. Longer term rates rise because there is a big deficit so mortgage rates rise. Spreads widen and you bail out the banks (as people borrow long term). More importantly you can finance the deficit via the banks buying say 10 year bonds at 4% and making a risk free spread off the government of 3.5% versus deposits. Certainly at the moment they consider that a better business than giving you a mortgage, eagle, especially as USTs have a lower risk weighting so they can leverage. (You dont want to finance the deficit through the consumer (who will then spend less) or investors (who will bring down the markets.)) (This policy does appear rather odd in a capitalist way. The sensible saver who didnt buy inflated assets suffers through too low interest rates and the good borrower who pays his debts suffers through too high rates in order to reward the silly banker who lent foolishly.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 My opinion is that Iran has the same "right" to Nukes as every other country that has them.The more countries that have them and especially the more "non-Democratic" countries that have them, the greater the danger of extremist or violent regimes, groups and sub-groups getting their hands on Nukes. Imagine a Nuclear Hezbollah or a Nuclear Hamas or al Qaeda. Imagine a Nuclear Red Army Faction or Sein Fein (sp?) back in the 80s/90s. The possibility is always there for tragedy. And we humans love our tragedy. Iran was heading towards democracy prior to the 50s when the Brits begged the US to take out Mossadegh. I have hopes that eventually Iran will return to that path. The US is hardly saber rattling towards Iran at this moment. We are doing nothing more than the inept and greedy EU at this point in time. Were I in charge. I'd step back completely. Normalize relations with Iran on our side. Tell Big Business to do as they will at their own risk and let events take their natural course. The Iranians/Persians are a great people. We should be allies. Not enemies. But, thanks to Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill and the greed of the British Oil Business and their heavy handedness and unwillingness to treat fairly with the Iranian people as well as the gullibility of the Dulles Brothers and Ike, we have a wide and deep chasm of distrust between our Nations. except for the hostages in 1978, and the current leader who is shouting for anihiliation of Israel and other fanatical insanities.... sure its the authentic leadership, democratically elected (except there is widespread accusations of voting fraud). its facile to look at the mistakes of the past and apply the correctness to the present. present day circumstances need to be viewed and weighed heavier. And there are massive reasons why Iran should not have nuclear capabilities. they sit on some of the worlds largest oil reserves. why do they need nuclear power? I don't think you read the whole post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.Win Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 My opinion is that Iran has the same "right" to Nukes as every other country that has them.The more countries that have them and especially the more "non-Democratic" countries that have them, the greater the danger of extremist or violent regimes, groups and sub-groups getting their hands on Nukes. Imagine a Nuclear Hezbollah or a Nuclear Hamas or al Qaeda. Imagine a Nuclear Red Army Faction or Sein Fein (sp?) back in the 80s/90s. The possibility is always there for tragedy. And we humans love our tragedy. Iran was heading towards democracy prior to the 50s when the Brits begged the US to take out Mossadegh. I have hopes that eventually Iran will return to that path. The US is hardly saber rattling towards Iran at this moment. We are doing nothing more than the inept and greedy EU at this point in time. Were I in charge. I'd step back completely. Normalize relations with Iran on our side. Tell Big Business to do as they will at their own risk and let events take their natural course. The Iranians/Persians are a great people. We should be allies. Not enemies. But, thanks to Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill and the greed of the British Oil Business and their heavy handedness and unwillingness to treat fairly with the Iranian people as well as the gullibility of the Dulles Brothers and Ike, we have a wide and deep chasm of distrust between our Nations. Can't keep falling back on the past dear bourbon guy. Sure there was greed, but they're not the only one who suffered that, In Europe alone there has been some much **** going on but most of the people don't hold it against each other anymore, I'm not still bitching at Spain or Germany, China has been mean towards itself while merging, Thailand and Myanmar, the list is endless, luckily people know how to move on. Some countries are however still posting a threat towards other countries and shouldn't have nucear bombs, no one should actually have them, no one should have a "right"to them. And as far as I know that is on mister Obama's agenda, create a world without these bombs, it is however probably not the easiest thing someone as ever done but if he gets the world to at least decrease the amount who knows what's possible. On a general note... Obama might be dissapoiting people but is there anyone you can think of who would do better? Personally I think he is doing a good job, I haven't heard to much sarcasm within Europe since he arrived. Cheney is crying about Obama just trying to get people to put their hands together in the old continent (which he gets done) but is that a bad thing? I'm sure Iran will be able to be a great nation again someday but it's not going to happen if everyone backs off and plays wait and see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I have to disagree. It is all about the history. All of the distrust towards America in Iran stems from Ike and Dulles x 2 being duped by Eden and Churchill into deposing Mossadegh. That's history. Ahmadinejad is one of the guys who led the Revolution in '79. That Revolution and the attitudes of Iraninan leadership can be traced back directly to Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA placing the Shah back on the Peacock throne in Teheran. That's history. Take that episode away... I'd say that the US and Iran are allies. Iran is not an "hardline" Islamic Regime. And they are probably NOT seeking nuke capability or taunting Israel on a daily basis. I've been to Europe. I read the news. Europeans have not forgotten the old hates. You must have forgotten the 90s and the Balkans. You must not see the Russian attitudes towards Western Europe. The German attitudes towards the Turkish. It's not difficult to see. It's all over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I think Obama is doing ok. I'll take a wait and see approach, though, because aside from talking...he's done absolutely nothing. Unless you count TV appearances and speech making as something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I think Obama is doing ok.I'll take a wait and see approach, though, because aside from talking...he's done absolutely nothing. Unless you count TV appearances and speech making as something. He's a great car salesman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 WHAT! Weren't you raving about him a while back? The charm is wearing off everywhere. And much faster than I thought. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Bill Maher Obama Monday, June 15, 2009 at 8:35 pm under U.S. News Bill Maher Obama Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com Self-described libertarian pundit Bill Maher ripped Barak Obama during a lengthy monologue on his HBO program Friday night, accusing the president of being obsessed with appearing on TV and failing to come through on pre-election promises. ?This is not what I voted for,? Maher said. ?I don?t want my president to be a TV star.? Maher criticized Obama?s constant television coverage and said the president should focus on fixing the nation?s problems instead. ?You don?t have to be on television every minute of every day ? you?re the president, not a rerun of ?Law & Order,?? Maher said. ?TV stars are too worried bout being popular and too concerned about being renewed.? Maher continued: ?You?re skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady ? but so is Lindsay Lohan. And just like Lindsay, we see your name in the paper a lot but we?re kind of wondering when you?re actually going to do something.? Maher added that Bill Maher Obamas presidential rival John McCain was right to say Obama acted like a celebrity and, amazingly for Maher, the comedian suggested Obama needs to act more like his predecessor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Enough with the Obamathon The president is on TV more than the ShamWow guy, but I want to see a little more action. By Bill Maher June 12, 2009 » Discuss Article (194 Comments) President Obama should just join the cast of "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!" It's not that farfetched; he's been on everything else. I'm still a fan, but there's a fine line between being transparent and being overexposed. Every time you turn on the TV, there's Obama. He's getting a puppy! He's eating a cheeseburger with Joe Biden! He's taking the wife to Broadway and Paris -- this is the best season of "The Bachelor" yet! Ads by Google Obama?s Brother In Kenya Obama?s Brother Lives In A Shack Read This Story Here! www.russiatoday.com Obama Biography Find Local Barack Obama Campaign Offices at YellowPages.com ® www.YellowPages.com Did Jesus Christ Exist? "The God Who Wasn't There" Acclaimed documentary now on DVD www.TheGodMovie.com I get it: You love being on TV. I love my bong, but I take it out of my mouth every once in a while. The other day, I caught myself saying to a friend, "Don't tell me if he's fixed the economy yet, I'm Tivo-ing it." Remember during the campaign when John McCain attacked Obama for acting like a celebrity and we all laughed at the grumpy old shellshocked fool? Well, it turns out he was right. Sorry, senator. I'm sending a nice gift basket of high-fiber muffins your way. It's getting to where you can't turn on your TV without seeing Obama. Who does he think he is, **** Cheney? Come on, sir, you don't have to be on television every minute of every day. You're the president, not a rerun of "Law and Order." Save some charisma for a rainy day. Taking strangers from a TV show on a tour of your house? We have that show; it's called "Cribs." And letting reporters ask you questions like "You like to be the one who picks out the shaving cream, don't you?" Or as it's called today, "journalism." I was willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until I saw him take Brian Williams into his bedroom, and at the end of the bed there was a teleprompter and it said, "Who's your daddy?" I mean, selling the personal part to stay popular, I'm all for it, but you got us already. We like you, we really like you! You're skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady. But so's Lindsay Lohan. And like Lohan, we see your name in the paper a lot, but we're kind of wondering when you're actually going to do something. I know that's harsh. But when I read about how you sat on the sidelines while bailed-out banks used the money we gave them to hire lobbyists who got Congress to stop homeowners from getting renegotiated loans, or how Congress is already giving up on healthcare reform, or how scientists say it's essential to reduce CO2 by 40% in 10 years, but your own bill calls for 4%, I say, enough with the character development, let's get on with the plot. And let's stop worrying so much about doing anything that might tarnish the brand. See, this is why I don't want my president to be a TV star: Because TV stars are too worried about being popular -- and too concerned with getting renewed. You can relax about that, Mr. President, knowing that there's a large, rich organization doing everything it possibly can to ensure that you'll get reelected: It's called the Republican Party. Speaking of which, if you can't beat Republicans now, when they're so down they take orders from Rush Limbaugh, then when? The way to get renewed for your reality show that you love so much is to act boldly now. Obama needs to start putting it on the line in fights against the banks, the energy companies and the healthcare industry. I never thought I'd say this, but he needs to be more like George W. Bush. Bush was all about, "You're with us or against us." Obama's more like, "You're either with us, or you obviously need to see another picture of this adorable puppy!" Bush had horrible ideas, like torture and deregulation and preemptive war and tax cuts for the rich, but he pushed them through, in their full measure, never mind Congress or the Constitution or the Geneva Convention or the Magna Carta or the Code of Hammurabi. The point is, he didn't care if it made him unpopular with every human on the planet not named Cletus or Fred Barnes. Which it did. And we need to marry the good ideas Obama really believes in with that Bush attitude and Bush certitude. I'd love for Obama to come out one day and say, "Jesus told me to fix healthcare." Or, "History will decide whether stopping the polar ice caps from melting and drowning us all was a good thing." In conclusion, Bush was a jerk, but he never cared about being seen having a burger with **** Cheney. He picked up the phone in the White House and said, "I'm the president, bring me a burger." And they'd say, "Sir, this is NORAD. Would you please stop ordering burgers with the red phone?" I'm glad that Obama is president, but the "Audacity of Hope" part is over. Right now, I'm hoping for a little more audacity. Bill Maher is the host of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Obama reaches hand of friendship out to Muslims then alienates Buddhists?? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jun/17/barack-obama-swats-fly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Obama reaches hand of friendship out to Muslims then alienates Buddhists??http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jun/17/barack-obama-swats-fly well, I hope the muzzies gave him a reach around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yea Bill mayer is a right and such a leftie :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I think Obama is doing ok.I'll take a wait and see approach, though, agree 100 percent so far... because aside from talking...he's done absolutely nothing. Unless you count TV appearances and speech making as something. i think he's done things--arguably quite a bit--but the things he's done will take quite a while before we see how they turned out. i think where he'll get himself in trouble is where he's left room for optimism about the economy. i suppose what he's trying to do there is bootstrap a bit--if optimism catches on it can become a recovery (grossly oversimplified i know, but...) problem is, if the economy doesn't improve it hurts him a lot more than if he stays on message that it is going to suck forever. pessimism would play as realism in my opinion. blaming dubya more often, rightly or wrongly, would be the sensible move politically (blaming the other guy is such a great approach to politics but kinda makes you wonder if these guys ever feel like they need an extra shower doesn't it). two things make me laugh and/or cry, just in general: 1) politicians really do believe they can steer an economy. i suppose we need them to believe this, as what they do has an effect (for better or worse, but.. meh). 2) whether the Obama presidency turns out well or turns poorly there will be a bunch of ideologues lined up to tell us all how much it proves they were correct. even though the only kind of argument an ideologue can string together is one that's back-engineered from the answer they want to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yea Bill mayer is a right and such a leftie :wink: Maher is left of Nancy Pelosi. Maher makes Pelosi look like a Newt Gingrich/Pat Buchanan hybrid. As a matter of fact, I think that most of the Euro-lefties on here use his talking points like the rabid dogs of the right use Rush Limpball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moobs Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I think Obama is doing ok.I'll take a wait and see approach, though, agree 100 percent so far... because aside from talking...he's done absolutely nothing. Unless you count TV appearances and speech making as something. i think he's done things--arguably quite a bit--but the things he's done will take quite a while before we see how they turned out. i think where he'll get himself in trouble is where he's left room for optimism about the economy. i suppose what he's trying to do there is bootstrap a bit--if optimism catches on it can become a recovery (grossly oversimplified i know, but...) problem is, if the economy doesn't improve it hurts him a lot more than if he stays on message that it is going to suck forever. pessimism would play as realism in my opinion. blaming dubya more often, rightly or wrongly, would be the sensible move politically (blaming the other guy is such a great approach to politics but kinda makes you wonder if these guys ever feel like they need an extra shower doesn't it). two things make me laugh and/or cry, just in general: 1) politicians really do believe they can steer an economy. i suppose we need them to believe this, as what they do has an effect (for better or worse, but.. meh). 2) whether the Obama presidency turns out well or turns poorly there will be a bunch of ideologues lined up to tell us all how much it proves they were correct. even though the only kind of argument an ideologue can string together is one that's back-engineered from the answer they want to believe. Nothing that I can argue with there. Except that he pretty much had to be scolded by Bill Clinton into halting his pessimism on the economy and taking a more positive approach to his message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yea Bill mayer is a right and such a leftie :wink: Maher is left of Nancy Pelosi. Maher makes Pelosi look like a Newt Gingrich/Pat Buchanan hybrid. As a matter of fact, I think that most of the Euro-lefties on here use his talking points like the rabid dogs of the right use Rush Limpball. I think its amazing how people can be split on party lines as its called. 2 completely different views on the same subject. Its an Orange no no no its an apple no no its color is orange no no no its more reddish. Well the stem on the top says its an apple n no no oranges have them too just you don't see them in the market etc etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now