Good Riddance, Mr. Obama, by Robert Gore
Barack Obama was not the worst president in US history. That honor goes to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was dead before most of us were born. Any education in history threatens to shed light on present conditions, so it’s been eliminated from curricula, replaced with pandering propaganda. Proper instruction would teach that FDR effected the sea change that transformed the US from a melting pot of mostly self-confident, self-reliant, marvelously competent individuals into a bankrupt welfare and warfare state, the majority of whose citizens are jumpy at their own shadows, afraid of their fellow citizens, and terrified of their politicians. Mr. Obama has merely been mop-up relief for the welfare-warfare team’s starter, FDR.
This is an excerpt. For the full article, please click the above link.
This is an excerpt. For the full article, please click the above link.
America is not solely responsible. America did not have colonies in Africa. THAT problem was inherited. Unfortunately, the solutions we tried exacerbated the problem. Your article on the Deep State addressed some of the reasons for America's actions over the last 7 decades.
The Cold War was also a contributing factor to those 'solutions.'
Even Putin has thanked the US for entering the war, so as to help defeat Hitler.
I don't think you are really aware of the carnage wrought in Russia due to the Siege of Leningrad, and Operation Barbarossa, and the Battle for Kursk.
Robert, I don't disagree with you on the American founders policies of isolationism, and even the Monroe Doctrine. The founders did not want those warring European states to export their wars to America. However, time marches on, and it is a different world, and a different America. Americans no longer have the luxury of forgetting that the rest of the world exists. Take the Islamic State of Nowhere, for instance. (I call them that, so they can believe how unimportant they are to the me.)
It is undoubtedly true that US entry into the war relieved some pressure on the Soviet Union and made it easier for the Soviets to eventually defeat Germany. However, by Normandy, the tide had decisively turned (Stalingrad was over February 1943), and I think it is more chauvinistically American, even superficial, to argue that it was the US entry into the war that was decisive. Had Hitler and Stalin been left to kill each other off, perhaps Stalin would have been too weak to swallow the Baltic nations and Eastern Europe. That, of course, is conjecture.
As for my preferred foreign policy, it is the same one favored by George Washington and John Quincy Adams, but that's another debate. "Isolatinism" is just a smear for a policy that endorses trade and peaceful intercourse with other willing nations, but eschews alliances and foreign political and military entanglements. It has worked quite well for Switzerland.
And you said something to the effect that Hitler and Stalin should have been left to kill each other off. To me, that shows a superficial attitude to the real events of the advance and engagement of World War II.
Cicero certainly did his best to attempt to circumvent Caesar's rise to power (Caesar was popular with the people---the conquering general), but Cicero was also combating Cataline, who was manipulating the masses. Caesar was also, promising grain and debt forgiveness.
Just a few clues. The American founders studied history, and were certainly aware of how easily republicanism can change to autocracy.
It started as a triumvirate, you know.
And of course Americans didn't want to get involved in another European war. But Churchill knew without the "might and strength" of the United States, all of Europe would fall to Hitler. I won't get into the role of Stalin and the brave people of Russia, nor even how Stalin knew Hitler meant what he said in "Mein Kampf."
You are showing a typical American attitude towards events happening in the rest of the world. You should get over that.
I don't think that post you deleted was actually posted by CircuitGuy, was it?
Obama caused the instability across North Africa and the Levant; he didn't just stick his nose into them.
because they're so decentralized and the numbers involved" Obama. If you like this POS you are a fool.
Narcissistic fraud is an empty epithet not related to Ayn Rand or President Obama, but you by chance hit upon one of my biggest disappointments with Obama: He campaigned on hope but often talks about fear. I was optimistic that investors would worth through the financial crisis on our own. He promoted fear, not hope, to sell people on expanding President Bush's policies of gov't bailout and stimulus. In the quote you cite, he's talking about the empathy deficit rather than on how empathy has been an amazing part of the civilizing process. Cruel treatment of criminals and animals are looked down upon. Solving your disputes with guns is seen as low-class, not something for top leaders like Burr and Hamilton. I don't see the deficit. I see huge progress, and I have hope that an even better world is possible.
"The biggest deficit that we have in our society and in the world right now is an empathy deficit. We are in great need of people being able to stand in somebody else's shoes and see the world through their eyes."
Barack Obama
I do agree with you. However, I actually would like to see what Trump does. I'm willing to wait and see if he's going to pull off "drain the swamp". And, I would like to give him his chance since he worked VERY hard to become president.
I don't agree with that assessment at all. I think he did a good job at managing the status quo. He hasn't fixed the structural problem of gov't. I don't know if it's possible for a president to do because part of the problem is executive over-reach.
"As for whether [President-elect Trump] is a clown and a showman, I'll judge the man by his results."
Yes. I am sure he's a showman of sorts, but it remains to be seen whether he will use to expand gov't power or protect citizens' rights. It could go either way. It will probably be a mixed-bag.
I do not know what the markets don't reflect this uncertainty. Maybe market participants don't think the POTUS has much impact on business, or maybe they're all looking at their own fantasies they project on him. For many reasons, I predict VIX will eventually reflect the uncertainty I perceive.
Getting back to the topic of judging by results, I agree completely, and I have a low bar. If a president can just manage the modern reality of a huge federal gov't with an empire-like military presence around the world, I will be satisfied. So if real per capita spending stay flat AND the deficit decreases while real per-capita GDP grow, I'll consider that success. Since President-elect Trump is talking about massive borrowing, similar to President Obama, my notion of a 10% cut in real spending over two years is pure fantasy.
Load more comments...