Obama's road to failure

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by arealpissedgoy, Nov 18, 2008.

  1. Appointing the Hildebeast as Sec of State.

    Overly-ambitious activist feminist females are the worst type to put in any high office.

    Lack of good judgment.

    Marked for failure.
     
  2. =================
    :D
    I see your points, but better there than VP;
    she probably would have aimed @ articles of impeachment against him., as soon as possible.....................................................
     
  3. Obama promised revolutionary change.

    If a political think tank had an objective to create the most anti change executive liberal branch they could still not out do Obama's picks.

    Obama does have a strong intellect. The only problem is that his own massive self confidence when addressing the topic of change will undoubtably be the cause of his drastic downfall.
     
  4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/30/do3010.xml

    President-elect Barack Obama proposes economic suicide for US
    By Christopher Booker
    Last Updated: 11:01pm GMT 29/11/2008

    If the holder of the most powerful office in the world proposed a policy guaranteed to inflict untold damage on his own country and many others, on the basis of claims so demonstrably fallacious that they amount to a string of self-deluding lies, we might well be concerned. The relevance of this is not to President Bush, as some might imagine, but to a recent policy statement by President-elect Obama.


    The 10,000 turbines in the US generate less power than a single coal-fired plant
    Tomorrow, delegates from 190 countries will meet in Poznan, Poland, to pave the way for next year's UN conference in Copenhagen at which the world will agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. They will see a video of Mr Obama, in only his second major policy commitment, pledging that America is now about to play the leading role in the fight to "save the planet" from global warming.

    Mr Obama begins by saying that "the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear". "Sea levels," he claims, "are rising, coastlines are shrinking, we've seen record drought, spreading famine and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season."

    Far from the science being "beyond dispute", we can only deduce from this that Mr Obama has believed all he was told by Al Gore's wondrously batty film An Inconvenient Truth without bothering to check the facts. Each of these four statements is so wildly at odds with the truth that on this score alone we should be seriously worried.

    It is true that average sea levels are modestly rising, but no faster than they have been doing for three centuries. Gore's film may predict a rise this century of 20 feet, but even the UN's International Panel on Climate Change only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches. The main focus of alarm here has been the fate of low-lying coral islands such as the Maldives and Tuvalu.

    Around each of these tiny countries, according to the international Commission on Sea Level Changes and other studies, sea levels in recent decades have actually fallen. The Indian Ocean was higher between 1900 and 1970 than it has been since. Satellite measurements show that since 1993 the sea level around Tuvalu has gone down by four inches.

    Coastlines are not "shrinking" except where land is subsiding, as on the east coast of England, where it has been doing so for thousands of years. Gore became particularly muddled by this, pointing to how many times the Thames Barrier has had to be closed in recent years, unaware that this was more often to keep river water in during droughts than to stop the sea coming in.

    Far from global warming having increased the number of droughts, the very opposite is the case. The most comprehensive study (Narisma et al, 2007) showed that, of the 20th century's 30 major drought episodes, 22 were in the first six decades, with only five between 1961 and 1980. The most recent two decades produced just three.

    Mr Obama has again been taken in over hurricanes. Despite a recent press release from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration claiming that 2008's North Atlantic hurricane season "set records", even its own release later admits that it only tied as "the fifth most active" since 1944. NOAA's own graphs show hurricane activity higher in the 1950s than recently. A recent Florida State University study of tropical cyclone activity across the world (see the Climate Audit website) shows a steady reduction over the past four years.

    Alarming though it may be that the next US President should have fallen for all this claptrap, much more worrying is what he proposes to do on the basis of such grotesque misinformation. For a start he plans to introduce a "federal cap and trade system", a massive "carbon tax", designed to reduce America's CO2 emissions "to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 per cent by 2050". Such a target, which would put America ahead of any other country in the world, could only be achieved by closing down a large part of the US economy.

    Mr Obama floats off still further from reality when he proposes spending $15 billion a year to encourage "clean energy" sources, such as thousands more wind turbines. He is clearly unaware that wind energy is so hopelessly ineffective that the 10,000 turbines America already has, representing "18 gigawatts of installed capacity", only generate 4.5GW of power, less than that supplied by a single giant coal-fired power station.

    He talks blithely of allowing only "clean" coal-fired power plants, using "carbon capture" - burying the CO2 in holes in the ground - which would double the price of electricity, but the technology for which hasn't even yet been developed. He then babbles on about "generating five million new green jobs". This will presumably consist of hiring millions of Americans to generate power by running around on treadmills, to replace all those "dirty" coal-fired power stations which currently supply the US with half its electricity.

    If this sounds like an elaborate economic suicide note, for what is still the earth's richest nation, it is still not enough for many environmentalists. Positively foaming at the mouth in The Guardian last week, George Monbiot claimed that the plight of the planet is now so grave that even "sensible programmes of the kind Obama proposes are now irrelevant". The only way to avert the "collapse of human civilisation", according to the Great Moonbat, would be "the complete decarbonisation of the global economy soon after 2050".

    For 300 years science helped to turn Western civilisation into the richest and most comfortable the world has ever seen. Now it seems we have suddenly been plunged into a new age of superstition, where scientific evidence no longer counts for anything. The fact that America will soon be ruled by a man wholly under the spell of this post-scientific hysteria may leave us in wondering despair.
     
  5. cstfx

    cstfx

    Vince Foster.

    :D
     
  6. I'd be interested in learning about Susan Saradon's and Timothy... (what the hell is his name?) ... opinions on this matter.

    We need a conservative movie director to film "How To Lose Your Base in the First Week of Your Presidency", or "O" for short.

    Funny, has Barack (as he wants to be called) yet to admit being fundementally wrong about the Surge in Iraq?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...20000-troop-surge-to-boost-Afghan-effort.html

    Barack Obama plans 20,000 troop surge to boost Afghan effort
    By Alex Spillius in Washington
    Last Updated: 11:31AM GMT 27 Nov 2008

    Comments 8 | Comment on this article

    The President-Elect's intention to shift the focus of the fight against terrorism to Afghanistan has been bolstered by Robert Gates agreement to stay on as Defence Secretary.

    Mr Gates is a strong believer in an Afghan surge, which would not only put thousands more boots on the ground but involve negotiations with malleable branches of the Taliban.

    It would also aim to boost co-operation with Iran and Pakistan where some elements have supported the anti-Western insurgency.

    The need for more US troops in addition to the 32,000 already serving, has been accelerated by the Afghan presidential election in September 2009, and the voter registration process that begins in the New Year, Mr Gates said.

    "The most important objective for us for 2009 in Afghanistan is a successful election," he said at a meeting of defence ministers from the eight countries fighting in southern Afghanistan. "One of the things we talked about was trying to surge as many forces as we can prior to the election, to try and provide a secure environment for the election."

    The Pentagon chief, who has been in the position for two years, added that he wanted to send another three brigades of combat ground forces and an aviation brigade, beginning as early as next spring.

    A Pentagon official said the plans are likely to be drawn up before Mr Obama takes office on Jan 20. Most will be sent to the poppy-growing South, where the need for more Western forces is greatest, and where 8,000 British troops are currently fighting.

    A spokesman said the final number was likely to be "well north of 20,000", and indicated that countries such as Britain already fighting in the south would not face strong US demands to provide more troops.

    Those would be placed on Nato participants not yet involved at the sharp end.

    Defence department staff members are privately delighted Mr Obama has chosen to retain a popular boss in the interests of stability. Mr Gates is expected to be officially introduced as part of an experience and centrist national security team on Monday.

    "The president-elect has already indicated that he wants to put additional troops in Afghanistan," said an official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    Over the weekend Mr Obama reiterated that he wanted to begin drawing down the 146,000 US troops in Iraq as soon as he takes office, saying he wanted to "shore up efforts" in Afghanistan.

    During the election campaign, Obama said his administration would dispatch two or three additional brigades to Afghanistan in 2009, on top of the brigade President George W Bush decided to send this January.

    Each brigade contains between 3,500 and 4,000 soldiers.

    Some estimates for the numbers needed to fight the Taliban are however now running much higher than the initial 20,000 foreseen by Mr Gates.

    Current and former US officials have warned that a surge of forces into Afghanistan will not necessarily meet with the same success as the troop build-up in Iraq.

    "Additional troops in Afghanistan may be necessary but they will not, by themselves, be sufficient to lead to the results we saw in Iraq. A similar confluence of events that contributed to success in Iraq does not appear to exist in Afghanistan," former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a recent newspaper opinion piece.

    Some analysts believe Washington ultimately will need more than 100,000 troops to stabilise Afghanistan before the Afghan army is ready to take over security.

    "I suspect that to succeed in Afghanistan, we're eventually going to have to swing a sizeable fraction of what we now have in Iraq into Afghanistan," said Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    "The scale of the shift will be large, and the time needed to pull it off will be long," he said.
     
  7. one more road ... Keep encouraging the comparisons to Lincoln.



    BEING A POLITICIAN FROM ILLINOIS DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO RIDE THE FIRST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT'S COATTAILS.


    Well, it does for the short-term, provided the media establishment's lips are firmly wrapped around your dick.
     
  8. Hillary is a good choice. Not only does Hillary support national security, free markets & trade, and globalism but she is also very experienced. Those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling wont be in vain.
     
  9. If you ask me, I would not take Lincoln's cabinet ideas ("team of rivals") as a model.

    Lincoln could have easily lost the Cvil War with generals like Burnside, McLellan and Hooker. If not for the North's overwhelming advantage in manufacturing, general economy, and population Lincoln would fail miserably.

    In a way, when he finally got things right, he was shot.

    N.B Out of all the people Obama is compared to (FDR, JFK, MLK, RFK, Lincoln, Malcolm X...) not one had a happy retirement or retirement at all. It is kind of disturbing.
     
  10. huh?
     
    #10     Nov 30, 2008