Obama: Dead in the Water...is it true?

[papaguido]

Uh oh. Remember that line about "Arab Spring" and supporting democracy that Obama was touting? Yeah, I thought it was lunacy, too.

Eh!

Friday, June 19, 2009
Hope and Change - But Not for Iran
by Charles Krauthammer

............In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring. The first in 2005 -- the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon, first elections in Iraq and early liberalization in the Gulf states and Egypt -- was aborted by a fierce counterattack from the forces of repression and reaction, led and funded by Iran.

Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception -- Iraq and Lebanon -- becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless. The entire trajectory of the region is reversed.

All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs' disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.

Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration's geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear "file is shut, forever." The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening.

That's our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.

Re: Iran's Election

Postby WBU ALUM » June 20, 2009, 6:58 am

I can't argue with one word of Charles' comments. The new administration is right about one thing: the world is watching.

Hope and Change - But Not for Iran

http://www.udonmap.com/udonthaniforum/p ... ng#p176281

I am speechless - not with "obsession", but with the hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy?? Iran and the Arab Spring of 2011? Like comparing apples to oranges

[WBU ALUM]

What hypocrisy?? Iran and the Arab Spring of 2011? Like comparing apples to oranges

You are correct, PG. They didn't happen at the same time and were conducted in vastly different circumstances.

The Iranian uprising was over their election results in 2009. Obama ignored it -- even though it was the People rejecting a regime funding and linking itself to terror.

Obama's Arab Spring Fantasy was in 2011. Obama funded groups linked to terror in Libya, Egypt and now Syria in 2013.

The key component in Obama's agenda in the Middle East appears to be to support regimes linked to terror. There is hypocrisy alright. It's Obama's hypocrisy in ignoring the Iranian People in 2009.

[WBU ALUM]

Obama’s legacy on the line as healthcare implementation challenges mount
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... e-decision

The dirty little secrets in ObamaCare are being exposed. As a result, it looks like a lot of politicians LIED to the People.

“If healthcare were to be his one major victory and it is seen as flawed and resisted to some good effect for the remainder of his presidency, that would be a hit to his legacy and it might take him off the list of great Democratic presidents,” said Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University.

Jillson said the delay also highlights the problems some had with the healthcare law and “feeds into the narrative that Obama is ineffectual in dealing with Congress.”

Ineffectual? Obama doesn't meet with them. More like ignoring. Obama just speaks in platitudes, tells them to get to work and if they don't act, he will -- like a good Child Emperor Tyrant.

[WBU ALUM]

If Obama's State Department will LIE about Kerry working on the Egypt mess when he was really on his yacht, it's easy to imagine that they would LIE about something bigger and ILLEGAL. Plain and simple. Obama's boys and girls in his administration will LIE about anything and everything.

State Dept: Oops, We Lied, Kerry Was Yachting During Egypt Coup
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013 ... Kerry-boat

On Friday, the State Department admitted that Secretary of State John Kerry was on his yacht off of the coast of Nantucket as the Egyptian military took over the country from elected Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi. Originally, the State Department denied the report from CBS reporter Mosheh Oinounou that Kerry was aboard the “Isabel” Wednesday afternoon. The State Department said that Kerry was working “all day” on Egypt, and State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki – the same Obama campaign worker who once claimed that the campaign knew nothing about Joe Soptic – said that the CBS report was “completely inaccurate.” That despite multiple tweets, reports, and even video of the Kerry motorcade getting stuck in traffic.

[gudtymchuk]

Oh no... John Kerry "swiftboated" on his own yacht! From Hillary Clinton to Eric Holder to James Clapper to Robert Mueller to Lois Lerner,etc just another example of the Obama Administration lies and lack of leadership.

[WBU ALUM]

Obama's and Holder's "Fast & Furious" debacle makes headlines again.

Police chief killed with rifle lost in ATF gun-tracking program
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nati ... um=twitter

A high-powered rifle lost in the ATF’s Fast and Furious controversy was used to kill a Mexican police chief in the state of Jalisco earlier this year, according to internal Department of Justice records, suggesting that weapons from the failed gun-tracking operation have now made it into the hands of violent drug cartels deep inside Mexico.

It takes awhile for LIES to unravel.

The rifle used in the shooting was purchased by Jacob A. Montelongo. It was but one of 109 weapons he purchased during Fast and Furious. To date, "some 211 people [have been] killed by Fast and Furious weapons in Mexico." In the U.S., Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down with a Fast and Furious weapon in December 2010.

And then we have more evidence of Obama's version of transparency. That's always their line ... still investigating. Can't talk about it.

The ATF declined to discuss the matter; officials said they are still compiling an inventory of all the lost firearms for a complete account of the Fast and Furious operation.

[WBU ALUM]

Obama and the Democrats own the economy, but you never hear them say one word about it. Why? It is a dismal failure.

Five years into the grand plan ...
1. GDP is at 1.8%
2. Unemployment is still at 7.6% (U3 numbers, not U6 at just under 15%)
3. The number of jobs added the past three months is not enough to keep up with the increase in population
4. Even with the Fed printing money at a record pace and interest rates at historic lows, there is no growth.

Obama is more concerned with his legacy and gay marriage and gay basketball players and supporting abortion and taking vacations and attending fund raisers and playing politics with ObamaCare and putting coal out of business. I am reminded about his repeated LIE: 'I will not sleep until Americans are put back to work.' Yeah, okay. That was repeated over and over in 2009. Here we are ...

Obama is still making history, though. More folks on food stamps and disability than ever before. More people living check to check than ever before. Manufacturing sector is still shedding jobs. Gas prices still higher than before he took office.

Meanwhile, the Child Emperor travels the world telling them what they should do.

[WBU ALUM]

Another ObamaCare stumble. There will be many more.

ObamaCare's Success Depends On The Young Being Stupid
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial ... z2XzAKYnUW

ObamaCare's efforts to expand insurance coverage and bring down costs depend entirely on convincing young people to buy coverage, while the law gives these people every reason not to.

A marketing presentation put together for the administration admits that convincing the young and healthy — who make up 48% of the uninsured — to buy insurance will be difficult, since they "take health for granted" and have a "low motivation to enroll."

What it doesn't say is that ObamaCare will give them still more reasons not to buy insurance.

According to recent news reports, the cheapest policies so far proposed for ObamaCare exchanges will cost an average of about $2,400 a year. And these come with higher deductibles, bigger co-pays and stricter limits on doctors and hospitals than many individuals can buy today at lower prices. This isn't exactly a strong selling point for millions of young people who rarely need health care.

Uh oh.

ObamaCare guarantees insurance coverage when one of these "young invincibles" does get sick, and at subsidized rates, since the law bans insurers from charging more based on health status.

How long will it take for the young to figure this out, and tell all their Twitter pals how to game the Obama-Care system?

The problem is that ObamaCare depends on getting the young and healthy to sign up so it can subsidize premiums for the sick. Otherwise, the insurance pool will get sicker and more expensive, causing a premium "death spiral."

This might not be a problem for those who ultimately want a single-payer system. But it's a far cry from what the country was promised by the Orwellian-named "Affordable Care Act."

This is what happens when members of Congress don't read the bill and blindly follow a leader who wants to "fundamentally change" the country.

[FrazeeDK]

thanks to the earliest provisions in the bill, the young folks don't have to get health insurance until age 26.. they can ride on their parents policies.. Then, "gaming" will work a bit since if they don't get health insurance they'll have to pay the penalty (per the SCOTUS a tax) which is cheaper than getting a policy.... So, impact is there any way you look at it...

[WBU ALUM]

thanks to the earliest provisions in the bill, the young folks don't have to get health insurance until age 26.. they can ride on their parents policies..

Who do you think pays for that? Their lack of participation in this bogus system causes everyone else's policies to go up in price.

Then, "gaming" will work a bit since if they don't get health insurance they'll have to pay the penalty (per the SCOTUS a tax) which is cheaper than getting a policy.... So, impact is there any way you look at it...

I don't think you understand it.

ObamaCare guarantees insurance coverage when one of these "young invincibles" does get sick, and at subsidized rates, since the law bans insurers from charging more based on health status.

Even though they pay the penalty, they get health care at reduced cost to themselves. Who do you think subsidizes their policy?

On top of that, paying the penalty doesn't mean much because that fine goes to Big Government. It doesn't help drive down the cost of everyone else's insurance. By not getting insurance, they actually cause everyone else's insurance premiums to go higher and higher -- even higher than we have now. The whole bill of goods was sold to Americans based on LOWER costs. That doesn't look like it will happen in any way, shape or form.

The problem is that ObamaCare depends on getting the young and healthy to sign up so it can subsidize premiums for the sick. Otherwise, the insurance pool will get sicker and more expensive, causing a premium "death spiral."

Bottom line is that they can get off more cheaply by not participating and paying the penalty, which drives the cost of insurance higher for everyone else, and drives up the cost of providing care for them because they get it at subsidized rates. There is no incentive for them to buy the insurance and participate in the system; but the system DEPENDS on them to be in it for it to be successful.

Kinda like, "we want you to buy a new car, but if you don't, we'll fine you and keep fixing the car you have at subsidized rates."

[LilRed]

I do NOT see any proposals from our rightists for improving our health care system performance, and, PRICE... (PRICE = cost + OVERHEAD + PROFIT...)

How about some serious:

- Rate reductions in doctor's fees, for example...

- Return of Profit back into the premium pool...

- Real national service for doctors...


Obama not only put HIS proposals on the table, but, also, got them passed into law by our Republican controlled Congress...

WBU your obsession with the Big O, coupled with your lack of substance, embarrasses us right thinking Americans. Try accepting what is, without belligerant, divisive, argument, supported by facetious articles...

There's a whole lot of very important issues, that you ignore and try to hide in rhetoric, and constitutional fundamentalism.

Your doing so, aids our enemies... Jane, dear...


ATB

[gudtymchuk]

Obama not only put HIS proposals on the table, but, also, got them passed into law by our Republican controlled Congress...



ATB

LilRed, you are a bigger stooge than I first thought. Best drop out of your school of ebonics and attend a few history classes.

[Quanteen]

Mod Note
Off topic comments removed.

[WBU ALUM]

I do NOT see any proposals from our rightists for improving our health care system performance, and, PRICE... (PRICE = cost + OVERHEAD + PROFIT...)

How about some serious:

- Rate reductions in doctor's fees, for example...

- Return of Profit back into the premium pool...

- Real national service for doctors...

None of that is the role of the government in a free enterprise system. Price controls? Redistribution of profits in the private sector? "National service"? All socialist programs designed to control people and stifle growth.

Obama not only put HIS proposals on the table, but, also, got them passed into law by our Republican controlled Congress...

First, of all, what Obama put on the table was LIES regarding ObamaCare. So far, it appears that nothing that he promised in that regard is going to happen.

Second, you really haven't paid attention at all. ObamaCare was passed with a Democrat super majority in the Senate and a majority in the House. Not one Republican in either body voted for that bill. Not one.

WBU your obsession with the Big O, coupled with your lack of substance, embarrasses us right thinking Americans. Try accepting what is, without belligerant, divisive, argument, supported by facetious articles...

There's a whole lot of very important issues, that you ignore and try to hide in rhetoric, and constitutional fundamentalism.

Your doing so, aids our enemies... Jane, dear...

You completely discount every reference I provide -- multiple in many cases -- while you provide nothing. If facetious, it should be easy for you to refute them specifically. You are doing nothing more than attempting to silence dissent, and of course, continue the name calling. You can't help yourself. It's what usually happens when the argument is lost.

What are the important issues -- specifically? Tell us about them and how they would be implemented. I'm ready to read. You might also tell us how Obama has not slept since 2009 putting the American people back to work.

[Quanteen]

You might also tell us how Obama has not slept since 2009 putting the American people back to work.

He's been busy spending $9 BILLION getting Africans back to work. Staggering how the sycophants support him irrespective of the facts.

[merchant seaman]

WBU +1

[LilRed]

WBU:

The American health care system provides much lower performance, at a much higher price. Clearly, the "free market" approach to health care costs more and is less effective than some other systems.

Why are you (that's the collective "you"...) willing to tolerate this... Maybe, as "the price of having a free market"?

Initial reports from users under Ocare, report much "competition" in rates being offered by PRIVATE insurance companies... It appears to be as a direct result of Ocare...

Time to start getting our money's worth for our health care dollars, wouldn't you say? If the "free market" health care system does not produce superior results, it's time for change.

President Obama has started it very nicely with Ocare.


Yes, I know Congress was held by the Demos when Ocare passed... Damn, good thing too. (I was jes testing to see how carefully you read others posts...)


Your Obama obsession, is clouding and unbalancing your reason.


ATB

[merchant seaman]

LilRed -1

[WBU ALUM]

WBU:

The American health care system provides much lower performance, at a much higher price. Clearly, the "free market" approach to health care costs more and is less effective than some other systems.

You keep saying this. That doesn't make it so.

Why are you (that's the collective "you"...) willing to tolerate this... Maybe, as "the price of having a free market"?

My health care was not only fine, but wonderful before Obama decided it was the role of the federal government to control it.

Initial reports from users under Ocare, report much "competition" in rates being offered by PRIVATE insurance companies... It appears to be as a direct result of Ocare...

You keep saying this, too -- with nothing to back it up. Nothing, as usual.

Time to start getting our money's worth for our health care dollars, wouldn't you say? If the "free market" health care system does not produce superior results, it's time for change.

I got my money's worth just fine. Please provide some tangible and specific "superior results" to this health care system that you think is already working.

President Obama has started it very nicely with Ocare.

Except it hasn't started.

Yes, I know Congress was held by the Demos when Ocare passed... Damn, good thing too. (I was jes testing to see how carefully you read others posts...)

Yeah, right.

Your Obama obsession, is clouding and unbalancing your reason.

I won't bother to ask how because you can't even refute facts with any sources. This is just another one of your opinions being used to make this personal and insult me. That's your style. I have come to expect it every single time.

My obsession is with the Constitution, free enterprise and individual liberty. Who the president is does not matter. Anyone ignoring those things and destroying the society with big government tyranny would get the same attention.

[WBU ALUM]

More ObamaCare misery ahead.

Delay in Obamacare requirement puts onus on the honor system
http://news.yahoo.com/delay-obamacare-r ... 17869.html

The employer mandate in ObamaCare is being delayed. Why? Because Obama wants it to be delayed. Why? Because midterm elections are in 2014, and more bad things will be revealed about ObamaCare prior to that election. More Dems will lose seats in Congress because they were the only ones who voted for the mess.

This delay means that health insurance exchanges and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will be unable to determine whether individuals are eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidies and will instead now rely on the honor system. Experts say the shift could result in billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse. Really? I don't believe that.

If the IRS doesn't have information about the plans large employers offer, it will be an honor system. When employees opt for exchanges, it will cost the government tons of money. Some people not eligible for subsides may attempt to get them anyway. IRS will have a hard time policing that sort of conduct.

Obama also has another motive. He wants as many enrolled as possible right off the bat so that it will be virtually impossible to repeal the law in the future. Obama is deliberately encouraging tens of billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse in order to achieve a political objective. It also further increases the national debt.