What do you mean by save, what exactly are your referring to?, the economic situation and future prosperity in the face of rising global powers, what exactly?
The American people will save the USA, if they need saving, they have taken the first step..
If the answer is scabies, than he's doing a damn good job. Obama is an advocate for safe sex, rather than abstinence, which makes him my second fav president yet.
Clinton was the best because he was a smooth player from the streets that knew how to get his. Plus he was a chubby chaser, which is great for a chuckle (I don't care, there are plenty of BBWs in the world and so little time).
I think asking whether Obama will "save the USA" is the wrong way to think about things, and it is borderline flame-baiting.
Will his administration pursue policies that help rather than hurt? Time will tell, but I like and respect the fact that he is trying new things, and does not appear to be bound by the old ideological conventions (although some people would argue that, if the government attempts to do anything at all, it is a "liberal" government. These people are stupid).
If the answer is scabies, than he's doing a damn good job. Obama is an advocate for safe sex, rather than abstinence, which makes him my second fav president yet.Clinton was the best because he was a smooth player from the streets that knew how to get his. Plus he was a chubby chaser, which is great for a chuckle (I don't care, there are plenty of BBWs in the world and so little time)."
If he is really for change and ends the war on drugs which would save thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and put a stopper on corruption. That would be a start anyway
"I think asking whether Obama will "save the USA" is the wrong way to think about things, and it is borderline flame-baiting.Will his administration pursue policies that help rather than hurt? Time will tell, but I like and respect the fact that he is trying new things, and does not appear to be bound by the old ideological conventions (although some people would argue that, if the government attempts to do anything at all, it is a "liberal" government. These people are stupid)."
"If he is really for change and ends the war on drugs which would save thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and put a stopper on corruption. That would be a start anyway"
If by "end the war on drugs" you mean "stop throwing money away" than I agree.
Drugs have always been around and always will be. It's not wise to dedicate so much money on an unconquerable cause.
I'm gonna let it all go to Hell then come in like Hank in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, I will wow the dazed, confused, stupid, and possibly radiated American public with my knowledge of dynamite and other such 'witchcraft.'
Of course not. He has already shown by passing this laughable "stimulus" that he has no idea what the hell to do.
The only phrases he can say are: "we need more credit" and "we need regulation" and my personal favorite "the free market caused this".
There is not a shred of evidence that should make a person think Obama will help anything. However, there is loads of evidence for him making mater much worse.
"warthog said: JFK was not that great of a president.He was an amazing speaker, but he also got us into the Vietnam war, he ran on the platform of taking care of the vietcong without nukes...."
Wow, are your actually suggestion that we should have used nukes in Vietnam?
I think the question is completely off. Stop asking whether Obama can save the day and start helping to make it happen. Honestly, I don't understand how people like Rush are not getting a major backlash for being unpatriotic and treasonous in wish our President to fail. If he fails the country fails. This not game football, its the future of our fucking country. Watching the RCN apologize to clown just shows how bereft of a soul that party is that a pill popping jackass is pulling the strings. I mean that would be like Howard Stern being taking seriously by Obama.
Its almost surreal that this actually part of the national discourse.
If you people want him to save the USA all on his own you have to make him a dictator. But hey, you Americans are smart people and a little "economic downturn" probably won't endanger the US. :)
"I'm hoping that the recession/depression will save America."
You nailed it. The only person that can save America is the man on the street. Looking to gov't to fix problems is completely the wrong way to go. Public opinion is against the TARP money, the bank bailout, and every gov't expenditure yet they're ignoring the public and doing it anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but democracy's supposed to be majority rule...and if the majority of the population doesn't want something, and the gov't goes forward with it, that's a dictatorship.
Eventually, they'll spend all the taxpayer dollars in a wasted effort to save a few greedy companies who were abusing power, and end up ruining the country. We'll be broke, and we'll be a non-entity in the world. Within 3 years, the US's position as a "superpower" will be gone. We won't be a third world country, but we'll have no leverage- political, technological, military, or economic- to make a dent in the world.
If the answer is scabies, than he's doing a damn good job. Obama is an advocate for safe sex, rather than abstinence, which makes him my second fav president yet.Clinton was the best because he was a smooth player from the streets that knew how to get his. Plus he was a chubby chaser, which is great for a chuckle (I don't care, there are plenty of BBWs in the world and so little time)."
JFK and Marilyn Manson, ooh yeah."
Pssst...I think you mean Marilyn Monroe, unless you wanted people to have some weird JFK-Marilyn Manson images in their heads (eww...)
Anyways, is it cool if I can just hope? Or is that a bad thing?
"warthog said: JFK was not that great of a president.He was an amazing speaker, but he also got us into the Vietnam war, he ran on the platform of taking care of the vietcong without nukes...."
Wow, are your actually suggestion that we should have used nukes in Vietnam?
I think the question is completely off. Stop asking whether Obama can save the day and start helping to make it happen. Honestly, I don't understand how people like Rush are not getting a major backlash for being unpatriotic and treasonous in wish our President to fail. If he fails the country fails. This not game football, its the future of our fucking country. Watching the RCN apologize to clown just shows how bereft of a soul that party is that a pill popping jackass is pulling the strings. I mean that would be like Howard Stern being taking seriously by Obama.
Its almost surreal that this actually part of the national discourse.
"
1. I am suggesting we should had never gotten involved in that war, regardless of using nukes we killed over a million vietcong, we might as well had nuked them, it was the same outcome.
2. This is a free country, if Rush Limbaugh wants to rant on about whatever he wants he is free to do so, even if he does come off as a complete idiot.
I don't think he will. He's already prolonged our suffering by signing the Trillion dollar bailout. Sure it's a good temporary fix, but when Hyper-inflation kicks in, we're screwed.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but democracy's supposed to be majority rule...and if the majority of the population doesn't want something, and the gov't goes forward with it, that's a dictatorship."
You're wrong, elected governments do unpopular things all of the time. They are held accountable during election time. It would be disastrous to try to rn a country on opinion polls. Consider yourself corrected :)
1. I am suggesting we should had never gotten involved in that war, regardless of using nukes we killed over a million vietcong, we might as well had nuked them, it was the same outcome.
2. This is a free country, if Rush Limbaugh wants to rant on about whatever he wants he is free to do so, even if he does come off as a complete idiot."
Hhhmm. If you have any Japanese friends I think you will find there is lot more repercussions to an atomic bomb that go way beyond the number of people killed for that exceed the normal surfing and loss of a war. But I will give you this, Kennedy is not the peace maker that Oliver Stone and some folks which to remember him as.
As for Rush, I never said he should be taken off the air. He can say what he wants but I am still amazed that there hasn't been a greater backlash against his unpatriotic and treasonous speech. Freedom is a two way street. You can say whatever you want but you must also be prepared to deal with the fallout from what you say.
I was not aware that the US needed saving. We still have the strongest military in the world, the economy of nearly every country in the world is in the tank (not just us), and we're still run on a representative government. Things will pan out nicely.
Well, unless the government decides it's intelligent enough to "fix" the economy. We know that will go well. *facepalm*
No matter the size of our military, it is undeniable that we need to focus our priorities. Sure, military matters, but we need to stop thinking that we're at the top of the ladder and start developing our government so it works for an increase in living quality for all our citizens.
"No matter the size of our military, it is undeniable that we need to focus our priorities. Sure, military matters, but we need to stop thinking that we're at the top of the ladder and start developing our government so it works for an increase in living quality for all our citizens. "
history has taught us that the nation with the strongest military is the strongest nation. But in order to have a strong military, you need a strong economy.
take Rome for example. They didnt conquor 3/4 of the known world by just having a good government, hell they had one of the most corrupt and twisted governments in all of political history yet they became the most powerful nation known to man even topping Nazi Germany during its peak.
"I think asking whether Obama will "save the USA" is the wrong way to think about things, and it is borderline flame-baiting.Will his administration pursue policies that help rather than hurt? Time will tell, but I like and respect the fact that he is trying new things, and does not appear to be bound by the old ideological conventions (although some people would argue that, if the government attempts to do anything at all, it is a "liberal" government. These people are stupid)."
if he was trying new things he would have gotten rid of the federal reserve. if he's trying new thing, we would not be comparing his stimulus as the second new deal. if he was trying new things, our government would be transparent and power would come from bottom up versus top down. the democrats and republican should merge back to the old democrat-republican party. the are one and the same now. how can you have fresh ideas when, you still sleep with the hands that feed you (corporations/lobbyists/unions)?
obama is still running under the old ideological conventions. hence there will be no change to this warped and old machine. people will continue to suffer and the divide would grow greater and greater.
Log in to comment