mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Soap Box

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-11-07, 17:25   #738
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

2·3·29·67 Posts
Default The Onion: Hillary Clinton Resumes Attacking Obama

George with his "2 days post-election and the economy is still broken" take seems to be channeling Hillary Clinton, or at least the Onion's version of Hillary:

Hillary Clinton Resumes Attacking Obama: "My fellow Americans, I admire Barack Obama, but in his first 20 minutes as president-elect, he has failed time and time again to deliver the change he promised."

Funny related video:

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

LOL, love the tagline right at the very end, after the second ad:

“Dow Jones plunges on news of Dow Jones Plunge”.
ewmayer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-07, 18:49   #739
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

2D8A16 Posts
Default Obama Victory Alters the Tenor of Iraqi Politics

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/wo...html?ref=world
Quote:
BAGHDAD — Barack Obama may have been elected only three days ago, but his victory is already beginning to shift the political ground in Iraq and the region.

Iraqi Shiite politicians are indicating that they will move faster toward a new security agreement about American troops, and a Bush administration official said he believed that Iraqis could ratify the agreement as early as the middle of this month.

“Before, the Iraqis were thinking that if they sign the pact, there will be no respect for the schedule of troop withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011,” said Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a major Shiite party. “If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable. This is a positive step to have the same theory about the timetable as Mr. Obama.”

Mr. Obama has said that he favors a 16-month schedule for withdrawing combat brigades, a timetable about twice as fast as that provided for in the draft American and Iraqi accord.

Many Shiite politicians had been under intense pressure from Iranian leaders not to sign a security agreement. Iran, which has close ties to Shiite politicians, has feared the agreement would lay the groundwork for a permanent American troop presence in Iraq that would threaten Iran.

But now, the Iraqis appear to be feeling less pressure from Iran, perhaps because the Iranians are less worried that an Obama government will try to force a regime change in their country.
ewmayer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-08, 05:40   #740
AES
 
Jul 2007
Tennessee

25×19 Posts
Default RE: Obama Victory Alters the Tenor of Iraqi Politi

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/wo...l?ref=politics

IMO, As Commander-in-chief, Senator Obama will be in a distinct position to execute the ultimate "bait and switch" on enemies of western civilization. Just a thought...

However, I've been labeled an idealist at every venue in which I've participated.

IMO, At this point, victory in Iraq is disengaging with a sustaining, acting, government in place which can defend itself. Maybe it's not such a bad idea to ally, and leave a US military presence. Like Japan, Germany, South Korea...

Last fiddled with by AES on 2008-11-08 at 06:19
AES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-08, 05:59   #741
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

11110000011002 Posts
Default

Once again, an example of why the failure, of those who advocated invasion of Iraq, to understand the potential consequences has led to that invasion's providing propaganda material for terrorists.

I predict that many Republicans will refuse to concede their role in bringing about the mess in Iraq, but will instead portray Obama's struggle to clean up the mess they made as some sort of failure on his part (just as many Republicans refuse to recognize Jimmy Carter's role in ending inflation, for which Reagan took undeserved credit).

- - - - -

BTW, this reminds me of the question I have asked but have not seen answered, "How do conservatives define 'victory in Iraq'"? That phrase seems to be an example of conservative cowardice, pretending that their creation of messes (such as the current global financial crisis) are somehow not their reponsibility once the other party is brought into power by public disgust at conservatives' failures.

How do conservatives define "victory in Iraq", exactly --in a way that allows others to hold them responsible for their words and deeds?

It seems to me that it's just a handy campaign phrase with which some conservatives can pretend that "if only they were allowed" to pursue "victory" in Iraq, we could achieve "victory" -- hoping to divert attention from the fact that U.S. forces defeated the Iraqi army, occupied the Iraqi capital and other major parts of the country, and overthrew their leader, all within a few weeks in 2003, so that nothing further need be required for "victory". In World War 2, that trio (defeating the military, occupying the country, and deposing the leader) was exactly what constituted "victory".

Furthermore, conservatives derided Clinton for his nation-building efforts in the Balkans, so they can't honestly say it is necessary to complete the nation-(re)building in Iraq to achieve "victory", can they? (That is, unless they admit that liberals were right and they were wrong on this issue, for which few conservatives have the integrity and courage.)

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2008-11-08 at 06:29
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-08, 06:18   #742
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts
Default

Something to keep in mind:

I've been mistakenly accused of being a far-left liberal, because of my numerous attacks on recent (since 1980) conservative actions.

Nope.

What I keep doing, as a former moderate Republican, is to point out (a) how conservatives of the stripe that has become prominent since 1980 need to admit and correct their flaws, and (b) how conservatives of the sort that deserved the label before the 1970s might take back the Republican party from the Religious Right and the bunch (as in (a)) that has used think-tank recommendations to abandon traditional conservative fiscal responsibility in order to get political power since 1980. I'd love to see (b) happen! I want to see integrity restored to the Republican Party.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2008-11-08 at 06:23
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-08, 06:26   #743
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AES View Post
As Commander-in-chief, Senator Obama will be in a distinct position to execute the ultimate "bait and switch" on enemies of western civilization.
Will you please explain what you mean by "execute the ultimate 'bait and switch' on enemies of western civilization"?

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2008-11-08 at 06:27
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-08, 06:34   #744
AES
 
Jul 2007
Tennessee

25·19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
Once again, an example of why the failure, of those who advocated invasion of Iraq, to understand the potential consequences has led to that invasion's providing propaganda material for terrorists.

I predict that many Republicans will refuse to concede their role in bringing about the mess in Iraq, but will instead portray Obama's struggle to clean up the mess they made as some sort of failure on his part (just as many Republicans refuse to recognize Jimmy Carter's role in ending inflation, for which Reagan took undeserved credit).

- - - - -

BTW, this reminds me of the question I have asked but have not seen answered, "How do conservatives define 'victory in Iraq'"? That phrase seems to be an example of conservative cowardice, pretending that their creation of messes (such as the current global financial crisis) are somehow not their reponsibility once the other party is brought into power by public disgust at conservatives' failures.

How do conservatives define "victory in Iraq", exactly --in a way that allows others to hold them responsible for their words and deeds?

It seems to me that it's just a handy campaign phrase in which conservatives pretend that "if only they were allowed" to pursue "victory" in Iraq, we could achieve "victory" -- hoping to divert attention from the fact that U.S. forces defeated the Iraqi army, occupied the Iraqi capital and other major parts of the country, and overthrew their leader, all within a few weeks in 2003, so that nothing further need be required for "victory". In World War 2, that trio (defeating the military, occupying the country, and deposing the leader) was exactly what constituted "victory".

Furthermore, conservatives derided Clinton for his nation-building efforts in the Balkans, so they can't honestly say it is necessary to complete the nation-(re)building in Iraq to achieve "victory", can they? (That is, unless they admit that liberals were right and they were wrong on this issue, for which few conservatives have the integrity and courage.)
The President and Congress made the decision to change Iraq. We can "Monday morning quarterback" all we like.

I'm looking forward. I'm hoping Senator Obama can resolve these issues as he says.
AES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-08, 06:45   #745
AES
 
Jul 2007
Tennessee

25×19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
Will you please explain what you mean by "execute the ultimate 'bait and switch' on enemies of western civilization"?
Yes, Read this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/wo...l?ref=politics

Then, assume Obama follows the "Bush Doctrine" at a critical moment. Like I said, Just a thought...

Richard, I don't agree with the decision to attack Iraq using my 20/20 hindsight. Currently, what I fear is another genocide like the "Cambodian killing fields", if we withdraw prematurely.

Last fiddled with by AES on 2008-11-08 at 07:36
AES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-08, 14:05   #746
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

24·32·53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
George, the study didn't say...
Cheese, when I quote someone my reply can mean many things. Often it means "what a load of crap, here's an opposite opinion", but it can also mean "here's some additional thoughts on the topic". Though you seem to have taken it as the former meaning, in this particular case it was more "How ironic, cheesehead announces the good news that the Democrat's victory may be good for the stock market, and the market immediately gives Obama a clear vote of "no confidence" in turning things around anytime soon.

Your study is rather well known. However, it is not a basis for an investment strategy. As I'm sure you are aware, one must compare all asset classes during the time periods to decide which mix gives you the best risk-adjusted returns. Then you need to factor in the significant tax consequences of a strategy that suggests significant changes in asset allocation every 4 or 8 years.
Prime95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-08, 16:19   #747
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts
Default

George,

I apologize for having written that earlier post when I was a bit tired.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime95 View Post
but it can also mean "here's some additional thoughts on the topic". Though you seem to have taken it as the former meaning,
I thought of both, but failed to leaven what I wrote, which came out lopsided.

Quote:
the market immediately gives Obama a clear vote of "no confidence" in turning things around anytime soon.
Actually, I'm in agreement with market analysts who thought it was more a reaction to specific bad economic news on both days. The market usually discounts foreseeable political news, such as the likely-for-about-a-month Obama win, in advance. That is, its reaction to Obama's win was actually signalled (among the other zillion factors) in its movements during the weeks preceding the election, rather than its immediate two-day post-election action.

Quote:
Your study is rather well known. However, it is not a basis for an investment strategy.
... but rather a significant indicator of some underlying causes.

Quote:
As I'm sure you are aware, one must compare all asset classes during the time periods to decide which mix gives you the best risk-adjusted returns.
... and so the study was about not stock prices only, but a total-return comparison with bonds.

Quote:
Then you need to factor in the significant tax consequences of a strategy that suggests significant changes in asset allocation every 4 or 8 years.
Yes, when one contemplates the total returns from any combination of alternative courses, one includes taxes in the calculations.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2008-11-08 at 16:24
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-08, 16:58   #748
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AES View Post
The President and Congress made the decision to change Iraq.
The President made the decision to deceive Congress and the American people about what his administration knew about Iraq, with the goal of swaying them to support his preconceived-before-he-took-office determination to invade Iraq.

I distinctly recall the feelings I had after his pronouncements about WMDs in Iraq -- there was a great deal of fear, which strongly tempted me to agree with his recommendation to invade Iraq. Had I been 30 years younger, I might have succumbed to that. But the additional experience and knowledge and "wisdom" I had acquired since my twenties allowed me to see past the fear to analyze how Bush was trying to deliberately manipulate us, just as he had after 9/11 (and just as in recent GOP pre-election appeals to fear -- see my earlier posting about how thoughts of death influence ones political views).

I carefully listened/watched as Powell made the presentation to the UN about chemical weapons in Iraq. I kept waiting for him to present the clenching item that would complete the argument ... but he didn't. I could tell that Powell was not presenting a complete, sound argument backed by evidence at all points!

(... and if I could, so could many others who weren't in thrall to Republican manipulation.)

Quote:
We can "Monday morning quarterback" all we like.
Yes, but some of us learn how to apply our knowledge and experience ahead of decisions in order to apply the lessons of the past. I started to consciously do so with respect to the current Bush administration about seven years ago.

Quote:
I'm looking forward.
But are you learning from the lessons of history now, so that you can avoid being misled by political leaders in the future????

Quote:
Originally Posted by AES View Post
You already posted that link, and I already read the article. That doesn't explain what you meant by "execute the ultimate 'bait and switch' on enemies of western civilization", even when you add:
Quote:
Then, assume Obama follows the "Bush Doctrine" at a critical moment.
Please explain what you mean by "Obama follows the 'Bush Doctrine' at a critical moment". You may think it's obvious what you mean, and you like to be cute by only hinting at it, but actually there are multiple ways to interpret your terse hints, and it's irritating for you to make us guess which one you mean. (Notice that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you realize there is more than one way to interpret what you wrote. It is possible that the reason you aren't more explicit is that you have not actually realized that there are multiple interpretations, but that would be less flattering to you.)

Quote:
Like I said, Just a thought...
... and, like I conveyed, an _incomplete_ one. Please finish it for us, or we may conclude that you actually have no such complete thought and are only pretending that you have something profound to say.

Quote:
Richard, I don't agree with the decision to attack Iraq using my 20/20 hindsight.
I didn't agree with that decision, using my 20/20 foresight, _even before the attack began_. What I'm trying to do now is to teach others how to learn from the lessons of history, so that the next time some political leader tries to sway you emotionally to agree with something that's not realistically sound, you'll know how to recognize the attempted manipulation and resist it!

Quote:
Currently, what I fear is another genocide like the "Cambodian killing fields", if we withdraw prematurely.
Okay. Can you calmly list a dozen _other_ considerations, also based on history but not so influenced by fear?

Last fiddled with by ewmayer on 2008-11-10 at 16:30 Reason: Last paragraph elided at OP's request
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
President assassinates charismatic Muslim davieddy Soap Box 46 2011-10-05 20:50
Thoughts on President Bush's January 10 speech about Iraq cheesehead Soap Box 173 2008-07-12 22:24
Public Misconceptions about President Jimmy Carter cheesehead Soap Box 29 2008-07-09 17:44

All times are UTC. The time now is 19:59.


Fri Oct 15 19:59:17 UTC 2021 up 84 days, 14:28, 0 users, load averages: 1.44, 1.96, 2.10

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.