Page 4 of 69 FirstFirst 123456781454 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1030
  1. #46
    Joined
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Corruptfornia
    Posts
    3,786

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    ^ That is a LOT of dough, MG !

  2. #47
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by /\/\adGamer View Post
    $120 bucks to fill up the work van today the internet is going to get a little more pricey soon Everything is going to start sky rocketing!Obama is fine with that too!

    I usually fill up 2 to 3 times a week too
    You know some treehugger would rather try to see you use a Nissan Leaf for a work van rather than drill baby drill in the United States.

  3. #48
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,657

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    $4.20/gallon here today.

  4. #49
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    I'm riding my motorcycle. 55mpg. Only have a 2 1/2 gallon tank so it doesn't cost too much to fill it up.
    Brian

  5. #50
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    I'm riding my motorcycle. 55mpg. Only have a 2 1/2 gallon tank so it doesn't cost too much to fill it up.
    I need a bike. My pop has been riding since he was 16 and every time I bitch about gas prices he tells me to get a license and I've been seriously considering it for 5 years.

  6. #51
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,795

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    $4.20/gallon here today.

    4.23 here... Top it off because it will be 4.33 tomorrow...

  7. #52
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,506

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post



    As AeroSim points out.. it's not like we need their oil or nethin'...



    We should have started drilling in the US before the last time oil hit $150 a barrel. Instead the idiots voted BO and all of his feel good "sustainable" policies into office. Their answer to rising oil costs? Buy a Prius. Never mind the fact that the world RUNS on oil, their "making a difference" with their hybrids. Now once again it's way too late to do anything of actual value about it. We need to use this countries HUGE natural gas reserves. Most cars can be converted over to NG without too much trouble or cost. The filling station is already at most people's houses. A perfect example of what the hybrid crowd SHOULD have been pushing for the last decade:

    http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/
    “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

    ― George Orwell, 1984

  8. #53
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,027

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by kbohip View Post
    We should have started drilling in the US before the last time oil hit $150 a barrel. Instead the idiots voted BO and all of his feel good "sustainable" policies into office. Their answer to rising oil costs? Buy a Prius. Never mind the fact that the world RUNS on oil, their "making a difference" with their hybrids. Now once again it's way too late to do anything of actual value about it. We need to use this countries HUGE natural gas reserves. Most cars can be converted over to NG without too much trouble or cost. The filling station is already at most people's houses. A perfect example of what the hybrid crowd SHOULD have been pushing for the last decade:

    http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/
    Yeah. The libs like to say that "well, if we started drilling today, it would take 10 years for us to see any of that oil."

    Hmm, what if we had started drilling in 2003? Or in the 1979, when the Arabs first threatened us with the "oil weapon"?

  9. #54
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia, USSA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,506

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keven View Post
    Yeah. The libs like to say that "well, if we started drilling today, it would take 10 years for us to see any of that oil."

    Hmm, what if we had started drilling in 2003? Or in the 1979, when the Arabs first threatened us with the "oil weapon"?
    Exactly. Reading some comments over at the Gas Buddy site, I STILL see the same idiots touting the same "but if we start now we won't see anything for 5 years" regurgitation. Let's see, back in 2007 I was saying we needed to drill for all the US oil we could find. That means right now we'd only have a year to go. I'd also have to wonder if the price of oil would be as high now if the ME knew we were close to drilling for our own.
    “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

    ― George Orwell, 1984

  10. #55
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    "leading from behind... " so true it hurts.

    The Obama doctrine: Leading from behind

    bama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the president’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.”

    — Ryan Lizza, the New Yorker, May 2 issue

    To be precise, leading from behind is a style, not a doctrine. Doctrines involve ideas, but since there are no discernible ones that make sense of Obama foreign policy — Lizza’s painstaking two-year chronicle shows it to be as ad hoc, erratic and confused as it appears — this will have to do.

    And it surely is an accurate description, from President Obama’s shocking passivity during Iran’s 2009 Green Revolution to his dithering on Libya, acting at the very last moment, then handing off to a bickering coalition, yielding the current bloody stalemate. It’s been a foreign policy of hesitation, delay and indecision, marked by plaintive appeals to the (fictional) “international community” to do what only America can.

    But underlying that style, assures this Obama adviser, there really are ideas. Indeed, “two unspoken beliefs,” explains Lizza. “That the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world.”

    Amazing. This is why Obama is deliberately diminishing American presence, standing and leadership in the world?

    Take proposition one: We must “lead from behind” because U.S. relative power is declining. Even if you accept the premise, it’s a complete non sequitur. What does China’s rising GDP have to do with American buck-passing on Libya, misjudging Iran, appeasing Syria?

    True, China is rising. But first, it is the only power of any significance rising militarily relative to us. Russia is recovering from levels of military strength so low that it barely registers globally. And European power is in true decline (see Europe’s performance — excepting the British — in Afghanistan and its current misadventures in Libya).

    And second, the challenge of a rising Chinese military is still exclusively regional. It would affect a war over Taiwan. It has zero effect on anything significantly beyond China’s coast. China has no blue-water navy. It has no foreign bases. It cannot project power globally. It might in the future — but by what logic should that paralyze us today?

    Proposition two: We must lead from behind because we are reviled. Pray tell, when were we not? During Vietnam? Or earlier, under Eisenhower? When his vice president was sent on a goodwill trip to Latin America, he was spat upon and so threatened by the crowds that he had to cut short his trip. Or maybe later, under the blessed Reagan? The Reagan years were marked by vast demonstrations in the capitals of our closest allies denouncing America as a warmongering menace taking the world into nuclear winter.

    “Obama came of age politically,” explains Lizza, “during the post-Cold War era, a time when America’s unmatched power created widespread resentment.” But the world did not begin with the coming to consciousness of Barack Obama. Cold War resentments ran just as deep.

    It is the fate of any assertive superpower to be envied, denounced and blamed for everything under the sun. Nothing has changed. Moreover, for a country so deeply reviled, why during the massive unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and Syria have anti-American demonstrations been such a rarity?

    Who truly reviles America the hegemon? The world that Obama lived in and shaped him intellectually: the elite universities; his Hyde Park milieu (including his not-to-be-mentioned friends, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn); the church he attended for two decades, ringing with sermons more virulently anti-American than anything heard in today’s full-throated uprising of the Arab Street.

    It is the liberal elites who revile the American colossus and devoutly wish to see it cut down to size. Leading from behind — diminishing America’s global standing and assertiveness — is a reaction to their view of America, not the world’s.

    Other presidents have taken anti-Americanism as a given, rather than evidence of American malignancy, believing — as do most Americans — in the rightness of our cause and the nobility of our intentions. Obama thinks anti-Americanism is a verdict on America’s fitness for leadership. I would suggest that “leading from behind” is a verdict on Obama’s fitness for leadership.

    Leading from behind is not leading. It is abdicating. It is also an oxymoron. Yet a sympathetic journalist, channeling an Obama adviser, elevates it to a doctrine. The president is no doubt flattered. The rest of us are merely stunned.
    Amazing what happens when you elevate a done nothing to the highest position in the land eh? Ya.. not really.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #56
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Yet another speech from chairman zero...


    He Has a Dream


    When the president talks about Middle East policy, it often seems as though he’s channeling his inner Jimmy Carter. Today, however, he seemed to be going for Martin Luther King Jr.: Plenty of cheerleading for nonviolent change and loads of “vision.”

    The president’s problem is he is not MLK. King could make a vision speech. His major speeches capped a long career of fighting successfully for civil rights. What was Obama building on? The answer is: two years of watching news from the Middle East on CNN; a speech in Cairo; a State Department racking up frequent flyer miles on failed diplomatic missions, and a quagmire in Libya.

    Today we got a history of the Arab Spring, a restatement of the principles of American foreign policy, a declaration that free markets are the cornerstone of economic development, and more cheerleading for the peace process. For this I had to miss the afternoon soaps?
    0+0 still = 0.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #57
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    With all the "leading from behind" of late it's a good question.

    Which Way for American Military Power?

    US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently called U.S. support for the NATO mission that’s helping opposition forces make progress against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime Libya an example of the international cooperation that will be critical in the future.

    In my opinion, under leftist Leon Panetta, the US military will be re-prioritized. The military’s role will shift from defending the US and its allies from attack, to becoming more of an active police force for the United Nations under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

    Defensive missile systems and nuclear hardware will be de-emphasized in favor of more mobile ground attack forces, with corresponding air and naval support.

    We saw this happen in New Zealand under the socialist Clark government of 1999-2008. Our protective Air Strike wing was disbanded, while our special forces and regular infantry were sent into places like East Timor on UN missions to shore up budding socialist regimes.

    The left doesn’t want the US to be able to defend itself. They don’t want the US military under the direction of the US Congress – God forbid! Its full of Republicans, some are even conservatives and patriots! The left wants US might and muscle turned into a an international police force, under the direction of the United Nations – where incidentally former New Zealand Prime minister Helen Clark now holds the number 3 position.

    I believe the recent action in Libya, should be viewed in this light.

    From the American Forces Press Service

    “It is a good indication of the kind of partnership and alliances that we need to have for the future if we are going to deal with the threats that we confront in today’s world,” Panetta told students during addresses at both the Naval Postgraduate School and Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center.

    Panetta said he is particularly proud of the mission the United States performed as a NATO partner in Libya, including the establishment of a no-fly zone to help protect the Libyan people.

    “It is a credit to the great job of nations working together on a common mission – something that is absolutely essential if we are to provide security in the future,” he said.

    This support and assistance, he said, has been “part of the key in being able to help the opposition forces there ultimately be able to succeed.”

    Panetta expressed hope that the opposition will succeed and NATO will have completed its mission. “It’s clear that the opposition has made significant gains. It’s clear that the regime forces are collapsing and that Gadhafi’s days are numbered,” he said.

    The United States continues to monitor events, but the situation remains dangerous and “very fluid,” he said.

    “In many ways, the future of Libya is in the hands of the Libyans,” Panetta told the assemblies, echoing President Barack Obama. “We hope that they will decide that it is important to establish stability and important political reforms for the future after 40 years of Gadhafi.”

    The Arab Spring, the name given to recent revolutions for democracy throughout the Middle East, is bringing change and in many cases, turmoil to the region, Panetta said. But it also offers “a chance to make that part of the world a better region, one that enjoys some of the values and some of the reforms and some of the political opportunities that we have in this country,” he said.
    Neglecting to mention of course that the entire Arab Spring has been directed from the beginning by communists and Islamist extremists.

    Americans are famous for their unabashed patriotism and support for their men and women in uniform. Will the left be allowed to turn those admirable qualities into servants of evil?
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #58
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,795

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    With all the "leading from behind" of late it's a good question.

    Which Way for American Military Power?

    If the US makes the drastic cuts to the military their talking about making the US will be just as weak militarily as the rest of the NATO countries and the UN, excluding our enemies. The US and NATO will have to depend on begging for mercy and the French manufactured white flag.

    What the current regime is doing to this country domestically and internationally is frigging disgusting and embarrassing ...

  14. #59
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,795

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Cheney: Lead-From-Behind Strategy in Libya Won't Work in Future Conflicts


    Former Vice President •••• Cheney said Wednesday it would be a "mistake" to apply the "leading-from-behind" strategy in Libya to future conflicts, though he described the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi as a "major plus."

    Cheney, in an interview with Fox News, said he remains "cautious" about relying too heavily on international coalitions.

    "We're sort of expecting somebody else to do it," Cheney said.

    Though the United States, in the case of Libya, was able to hand off leadership of the operation to NATO while leaving it up to the Libyan rebels to take the casualties and do the fighting, Cheney suggested the U.S. probably won't get so lucky in the future.

    "I think that's a mistaken notion ... we just lay back, say 'please, please, pretty please' to everybody else out there, that somehow they'll step up," he said. "There isn't anybody else who can do it long term except the United States, and I think that would be a mistake to take the Libyan experience and now say that's a model you can follow in all crises."

    Still, he gave the coalition and rebels credit for driving out Qaddafi, though he noted the dictator's whereabouts are unknown. He said many questions remain about the future of Libya, but expressed hope that the Qaddafi dictatorship would be replaced by a democracy that isn't full of radical elements.

    Cheney, who is promoting his new memoir "In My Time," also said he's concerned about the implications for the military of a new supercommittee tasked with finding deficit savings. That bipartisan committee is supposed to find $1.5 trillion or so in savings by the end of the year -- if it doesn't, a built-in "trigger" could chop about $500 billion from defense spending over the next decade.

    "It's very important for us not to do serious long-term damage to our defense capabilities during the course of this budget exercise," Cheney said. "We should not whack away at the defense budget."


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...ure-conflicts/

    Cheney is dead on target again.

  15. #60
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: Obama administration foreign policy... or lack thereof.

    Well.. as long as your position is so crystal clear.



    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •