March 28, 2024, 12:00:04 PM

Author Topic: Barack Obama Thread  (Read 48285 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cantona007

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #60 on: December 02, 2011, 08:16:26 AM »
Why Republicans Embrace Simpletons and How it Hurts America
By James Marshall Crotty | Forbes – Wed, Nov 30

<snip>


Excellent. My favourite was the line about "arrogance wed to ignorance"

I recommend two books:
Idiot America by Charles Pierce
The Great Derangement by Matt Taibi
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 08:27:41 AM by Cantona007 »
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
/* Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald Knuth */

Offline ribbit

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4294
  • T & T We Want A Goal !
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #61 on: December 02, 2011, 11:27:02 AM »
Why Republicans Embrace Simpletons and How it Hurts America
By James Marshall Crotty | Forbes – Wed, Nov 30

eh, but de writer so busy beating on de republicans, he miss out de bigger point. just what are the qualifications of the so-called Leader of the Free World? de truth is that the so-called Leader of the Free World have to be able raise money for de campaign and turn out their base. like de current prez who pick up right where his much reviled predecessor left off and didn't really change direction much. no real change in policy, just optics. obuma validate de bush years dat is de sad fact of de matter. all dis talk about how weak de field is missing de forest for de trees.

Offline Daft Trini

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3822
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #62 on: December 02, 2011, 11:35:03 AM »
The writer obviously has never watched the open floor remarks of the House and Senate.

Lefty my motto dese days is put yuh vote whey yuh money have growth. Yuh see obama sweating in Under Armor shoes dese days. he ditch nike...  (I still dislike progressives and liberals) I wish I did not have a dislike for the UNC so much, because I could have make a mint with them idiots.

Offline lefty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5888
  • would u like to buy an 'O'.........
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #63 on: December 02, 2011, 11:44:09 AM »
The writer obviously has never watched the open floor remarks of the House and Senate.

Lefty my motto dese days is put yuh vote whey yuh money have growth. Yuh see obama sweating in Under Armor shoes dese days. he ditch nike...  (I still dislike progressives and liberals) I wish I did not have a dislike for the UNC so much, because I could have make a mint with them idiots.


I hear yuh brother  ;D cool scene :beermug:
I pity the fool....

Offline Bourbon

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5209
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #64 on: December 02, 2011, 01:57:20 PM »
On the other hand...we candidates bright...dey more dan bright.
The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today are Christians who acknowledge Jesus ;with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.

Offline Daft Trini

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3822
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #65 on: December 03, 2011, 01:47:22 PM »
Black Man's Kryptonite got the best of Cain...

Offline Jumbie

  • ~~~ JUMBIE ~~~
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4269
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #66 on: December 03, 2011, 05:13:14 PM »
Black Man's Kryptonite got the best of Cain...

:rotfl:  :rotfl:   :rotfl:  :rotfl:

Offline lefty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5888
  • would u like to buy an 'O'.........
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #67 on: December 03, 2011, 06:12:48 PM »
Black Man's Kryptonite got the best of Cain...

um one of those women looked liked that  ??? or that ??? .......... or maybe this ??? .......... ah doh know ah jus askin based on d definition of BMK ;D
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 06:14:37 PM by lefty »
I pity the fool....

Offline just cool

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8065
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #68 on: December 04, 2011, 04:53:06 PM »
Black Man's Kryptonite got the best of Cain...
How come it didn't get the best of Obama?
The pen is mightier than the sword, Africa for Africans home and abroad.Trinidad is not my home just a pit stop, Africa is my destination,final destination the MOST HIGH.

truetrini

  • Guest
Mc Cain endorses Obama at Romney meeting...lol
« Reply #69 on: January 06, 2012, 10:27:39 AM »
Yesterday, at a Mitt Romney campaign event in South Carolina, McCain said:

“I am confident, with the leadership and the backing of the American people, President Obama will turn this country around.” (see video here)

http://www.examiner.com/charleston-democrat-in-charleston-sc/john-mccain-hails-president-obama-video

Offline asylumseeker

  • Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18073
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #70 on: January 16, 2012, 07:56:11 PM »
...
Pay attention to the fortunes of Jon Huntsman. As the wind blows on that end, Romney might implode.

I thought I would follow-up on the comment above given the departure of Huntsman. The article below highlights elements of the inter-connectivity between Huntsman and Romney and the inverse relationship I thought could expose one at the expense of the other.

I think it's fair to say that the American electorate is/was more familiar with Romney given his longstanding bid to be PoTUS. However, his money has not offset his perceived liabilities. Arguably, another candidate, more amenable and appealing to the American public, with similarly deep pockets would have distanced himself much more concretely than 25% share of the voter market in the Republican/independent early season.

January 15, 2012, 9:18 pm
Huntsman Says He’s Quitting G.O.P. Race
By JIM RUTENBERG AND JEFF ZELENY

CHARLESTON, S.C. — Jon M. Huntsman Jr. will announce Monday that he is ending his bid for the Republican presidential nomination and endorsing Mitt Romney, narrowing the field and erasing a challenge to Mr. Romney from the moderate wing of his party.

Mr. Huntsman, who had hoped to use the South Carolina primary this week to revive his flagging candidacy, informed his advisers on Sunday that he was bowing to political reality and would back Mr. Romney, whom he accused a week ago of putting party ahead of country.

Mr. Huntsman, who had struggled to live up to the early expectations of his candidacy, was to deliver a speech Monday morning in Myrtle Beach, where the five remaining major Republican candidates will gather hours later for a debate. His endorsement of Mr. Romney is indication of the party establishment getting behind Mr. Romney and trying to focus the party on defeating President Obama.

“The governor and his family, at this point in the race, decided it was time for Republicans to rally around a candidate who could beat Barack Obama and turn around the economy,” Matt David, Mr. Huntsman’s campaign manager, said in an interview Sunday evening. “That candidate is Gov. Mitt Romney.”

But Mr. Huntsman’s decision was unlikely to have any particular influence where Mr. Romney needs it most, among social and religious conservatives who remain wary of Mr. Romney’s ideological inconsistency. With the withdrawal of Mr. Huntsman, who despite his efforts to portray himself as more conservative than Mr. Romney was often viewed as the moderate in the race, the South Carolina primary is now Mr. Romney against an array of opponents coming at him from the right.

Mr. Romney faces challenges from Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, and Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker. Also on the ballot in South Carolina are Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who has shown few signs of attracting a following here, and Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas.

Both Mr. Santorum and Mr. Gingrich are hoping for strong enough showings here to go on as the main alternatives to Mr. Romney. After months in which social conservatives have been fractured, Mr. Santorum is trying to energize his candidacy in the wake of a vote by evangelical leaders over the weekend to back him.

It was a disappointing finale to the high-flying presidential aspirations of Mr. Huntsman.

A third-place finish in the New Hampshire primary last week failed to jump-start his candidacy, aides said, and his campaign limped into South Carolina with little money. Mr. Huntsman had spent days pondering his future in the race, and aides said he told them on Sunday that he was unlikely to topple Mr. Romney or match the momentum of his Republican rivals in the conservative Southern primary.

Mr. Huntsman and Mr. Romney had been competing for similarly moderate voters, and aides said he had come to the realization that he had little chance to win and that the votes he would receive would come from Mr. Romney’s potential voter pool.

To the extent that Mr. Huntsman had the support of those moderate Republican voters, his departure from race removes any competition for that segment of the party’s electorate, giving Mr. Romney breathing room to focus even more on persuading evangelical voters who have been cooler to his candidacy that he is the more electable candidate in November.

Yet late Sunday evening, a spokesman for Mr. Gingrich sought to portray the decision by Mr. Huntsman as a boon to him, saying in a statement, “We are one step closer to a bold Reagan conservative winning the G.O.P. nomination.”

The decision from Mr. Huntsman came on the same day that he received the endorsement from The State, the newspaper in the capital, Columbia. He had campaigned in South Carolina over the weekend, not giving any indication that the end was near.

While Mr. Romney and Mr. Huntsman were both here in Charleston, aides said the two men had not spoken Sunday evening. When approached at a downtown restaurant here, a table of senior advisers to Mr. Romney declined to discuss the endorsement.

“No comment,” said Eric Fernstrom, an aide. “”But the bread pudding is outstanding.” On Monday morning, Mr. Romney and Mr. Huntsman were scheduled to speak.

Mr. Huntsman first signaled his presidential ambitions here in South Carolina in May, days after returning from Beijing, where he had been the United States ambassador to China. He surrounded himself with a roster of veteran advisers who positioned Mr. Huntsman as a new brand of Republican.

He formally announced his candidacy in June, in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, calling for a more civil kind of presidential campaign and promising a better future than the one that Mr. Obama would provide.

“He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help a country we both love,” Mr. Huntsman said of Mr. Obama. “But the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who will be the better president, not who’s the better American.”

But the campaign of “civility, humanity and respect” that Mr. Huntsman promised quickly faded into the background as his Republican rivals seized the attention — and the support — of a party faithful that seemed more interested in red-meat politics.

Voters also seemed wary of a candidacy by a person whose most recent service was to the very man he now wanted to oust. Fawning letters that Mr. Huntsman wrote about Mr. Obama’s leadership did not help that case.

For months, Mr. Huntsman languished near the bottom in the national polls and eventually gave up on competing in Iowa. He moved his campaign headquarters to Florida, betting that he could wait until that primary to make his move.

But as the first contests got closer, Mr. Huntsman made the decision to move his campaign to New Hampshire, where he hoped that the presence of independent voters would help his chances. Mr. Huntsman did better in New Hampshire than polls might have suggested, but he came in a distant third behind Mr. Romney and Mr. Paul.

But Mr. Obama’s top advisers seemed to see the danger in Mr. Huntsman’s candidacy, signaling in 2009 that they thought he might be a strong contender.

Michael D. Shear contributed reporting from Washington.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/huntsman-says-hes-quitting-g-o-p-race/

Offline asylumseeker

  • Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18073
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #71 on: January 16, 2012, 08:13:52 PM »
...

This election presently rides on domestic policy formulation and that's unlikely to change on present course. Even with the nullification of Osama bin Laden, the removal of Moammar Qaddafi, the realignment of Afghan and Pakistani issues, and "front page minimization" of Iranian and North-Korean centered issues, the administration has not been able to claim more than a Pyrrhic victory.

North Korea? We know the 411 on that given the new face in Pyongyang. Iran? Less front-page minimization since September.

Updated to the online NYT just a few minutes ago:

January 16, 2012
Iran Face-Off Testing Obama the Candidate
By MARK LANDLER

WASHINGTON — The escalating American confrontation with Iran poses a major new political threat to President Obama as he heads into his campaign for re-election, presenting him with choices that could harm either the economic recovery or his image as a firm leader.

Sanctions against Iran’s oil exports that the president signed into law on New Year’s Eve started a fateful clock ticking. In late June, when the campaign is in full swing, Mr. Obama will have to decide whether to take action against countries, including some staunch allies, if they continue to buy Iranian oil through its central bank.

After fierce lobbying by the White House, which opposed this hardening in the sanctions that have been its main tool in pressuring Tehran, Congress agreed to modify the legislation to give Mr. Obama leeway to delay action if he concludes the clampdown would disrupt the oil market. He may also invoke a waiver to exempt any country from sanctions based on national security considerations.

But using either of those escape hatches could open the president to charges that he is weak on Iran, which is viewed by Western powers as determined to achieve a nuclear weapons capability and which has drawn a tough response from Europe as well.

Republican candidates, led by Mitt Romney, have threatened to use military action to prevent Tehran from building a bomb, and have criticized Mr. Obama for not doing enough to stop it from joining the nuclear club.

“If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Romney declared in South Carolina in November. “And if we elect Mitt Romney, they will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Few inside the administration see a surefire way of preventing Iran from crossing the nuclear weapons threshold, though none are ready to discuss moving to a focus on containing a nuclear Iran.


The administration is deeply reluctant to use military action, and the United States strenuously denied involvement in the recent killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist. Instead, it has focused mainly on using economic pressure to make Iran pay a high price for expanding its nuclear efforts despite international sanctions.

“To appear to back off, when the Iranians are proceeding pell-mell with their nuclear program, would be very difficult for the administration, particularly in an election year,” said Stuart E. Eizenstat, a former senior official at the Treasury and State Departments who helped draft sanctions against Iran during the Clinton administration.

“On the other hand,” he said, “sanctions could harm the economy and his re-election chances. It is an excruciatingly difficult set of choices, and one he will face sooner rather than later.”

Senator Mark Steven Kirk, an Illinois Republican who sponsored the sanctions bill, along with Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, added another variable to the president’s difficult calculus, arguing that sanctions may be the only thing that dissuades Israel from mounting a pre-emptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations.

“The first waiver would trigger a whole lot of other waiver applications, potentially gutting the policy,” he said. “The more you gut the policy, the more likely you make military action by Israel. The pro-Israel community would not want a gutting of the sanctions.”

The administration says that it plans to put the sanctions in effect rigorously, and that the modifications it negotiated with Congress will allow Mr. Obama to do so without rattling the oil market. The European Union is expected to impose its own sanctions on Iran’s oil exports next week, making it easier for the United States to carry out its measures.

Administration officials point to some encouraging signs: major importers of Iranian oil, like Japan and South Korea, are searching for alternative suppliers. And Iran’s currency, the rial, has plummeted since the sanctions were signed, raising pressure on the government.

Referring to the tense negotiations with Congress, a senior Treasury official said, “It was a question of tactics and timing, not the target.”

With his ending of the Iraq war and the killings of Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda, Mr. Obama has projected an air of competence on national security, and he is arguably less vulnerable in that field than previous Democratic presidents.

But trying to influence the world’s oil market is a different kind of challenge, experts say. Already, Iran’s leaders are maneuvering to drive up oil prices, whether to signal that sanctions could bring repercussions, or to mitigate the effects of reduced sales. Iran’s threat to shut off the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes, sent prices soaring this month.

“Oil has to be replaced with more oil,” said Daniel Yergin, an oil expert who has written a book, “The Quest,” about energy security. Cutting off one of the world’s leading oil exporters without squeezing the overall flow of oil is an extremely complex undertaking, he said. “I’m hard pressed to think of a precedent for this,” he added.

Then, too, there is the fragile state of the economy, even with recent signs of life in the job market. An oil crisis is one of those shocks, like a collapse of the euro, that could derail the recovery. Fears about rising oil prices led the White House to oppose efforts on Capitol Hill to impose draconian sanctions against Iran’s central bank.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, in a letter last month to the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said a total crackdown on the central bank could undermine the administration’s “carefully phased” approach and “yield a net economic benefit to the Iranian regime.”

But the administration found itself dealing with a rare bipartisan show of resolve. The sanctions passed the Senate by a unanimous vote, almost unheard of in today’s contentious atmosphere. The bill was attached to a crucial $662 billion military spending bill.

Under the terms of the legislation, Mr. Obama must, within 180 days, cut off access to the United States to any public or private financial institution that buys oil through the Central Bank of Iran. The goal is, effectively, to shut down the central bank, depriving the Iranian government of financing for its nuclear activities.

Mr. Obama retains two important levers: he can delay sanctions if he determines there is not enough oil in the market, and he can exempt any country that has “significantly reduced its volume of crude oil purchases from Iran.” Administration officials, seeking to preserve flexibility, said they would not quantify “significant.”

An early test of the administration’s approach will come at the end of February, when the law mandates that it cut off private financial institutions that conduct non-oil transactions with Iran’s central bank, except for the sale of food, medicine and medical devices.

Senator Kirk said carrying out the oil sanctions might be less complicated than it appeared, with Saudi Arabia pledging to step up production and with Libya and Iraq both bringing production back online. But the administration’s opposition to the original draft of his legislation, he said, belied the president’s threats to the Iranian government.

“It’s been a strange political journey for the president because he said he was tough on Iran,” Mr. Kirk said.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 08:16:20 PM by asylumseeker »

Offline Daft Trini

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3822
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #72 on: January 27, 2012, 11:51:03 AM »
Roll like barry

Ebay link:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/President-BARACK-OBAMAS-car-NOW-TITLE-SCAN-2005-Chrysler-300C-HEMI-V8-/120849425946?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/26/autos/barack-obama-chrysler-300c/index.htm?source=cnn_bin

PETER DRIVES
164 comments
Obama's Chrysler 300 on sale for $1 million
By Peter Valdes-Dapena @PeterDrives January 26, 2012: 3:50 PM ET

The current owners of a Chrysler 300C once leased by President Barack Obama -- then Senator Obama -- is asking $1 million for the car.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- A Chrysler 300C once leased by President Barack Obama is for sale on eBay with the eye-popping "opening bid" of $1 million.
The opening bid, which is dictated by the seller, means that bidding for the car must start at that price.
150

2
PrintComment

The woman who posted the car on eBay Motors, Lisa Czibor, said she has received some criticism for the high asking price but that the current owner of the car fully expects to get that amount.
Czibor said in a phone interview with CNNMoney that she is listing the car for someone else but looks forward to getting a commission on the sale. She describes herself as a "life-long Ronald Reagan old-school conservative."
"It's all about the money for me," she said
Million-dollar cars from Scottsdale Auctions
She's unlikely to get anything like a million dollars, said Craig Jackson, president of the Barrett-Jackson auto auction company.
"Maybe this car would be worth $50,000 to $100,000."
The hearse which carried the body of John F. Kennedy following his 1963 assassination in Dallas recently sold at a Barrett-Jackson auction for $160,000.
Jackson's company has sold several presidential cars and none have ever brought anything approaching that kind of money, he said.

It might help if the car, itself, were innately rare or valuable, but it's not. The car is a stock late-model Chrysler very similar to many thousands of others that are still on the road. With no presidential connection, it would be worth about $20,000 as a used car.
Also, history has yet to render a verdict on Obama's presidency.
A presidential parade limousine used by Franklin Roosevelt, a Cadillac V-16 convertible, was recently auctioned off at an RM Auctions sale in Arizona for $270,000.
The eBay listing provides a few examples of other cars that have sold for surprising amounts, though. A Peugeot once owned by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sold for £1.5 million pounds -- roughly $2.4 million.
She also mentions a 1999 Volkswagen Golf once owned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- now known as Pope Benedict XVI -- which sold for $244,000.
Czibor provided CNNMoney with a scanned copy of an Illinois Certificate of Title showing Barack Obama as the lessee. The car currently has 20,800 miles on it.
She would not say how the car came into the current owner's possession.
A spokesperson for the White House did not immediately comment on the eBay listing.
Obama was a U.S. Senator representing Illinois during the time he owned the car. After driving the Chrysler sedan for over 19,000 miles Obama traded it for a 2007 Ford Escape Hybrid in the summer of 2007 as he was beginning his presidential campaign.
The Chrysler gets about 18 miles per gallon in combined city and highway driving, according to EPA estimates, while the Escape Hybrid gets about 30.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #73 on: January 27, 2012, 12:32:51 PM »
U.S. Economy Grew by 2.8 Percent in the last Quarter...

Added to:

Ford's announcement of a third straight annual profit

GM is once more the world's number one auto maker by volume of sales

And Unemployment falling to 8.5%...

Obama is gaining significant Economic momentum to shore off any challenge from Romney, who has nothing but his business acumen to offer.

Added to all of this are the gains in foreign policy, namely the withdrawal of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,  assassination of Al Aklawi and Bin Laden... signs are pointing to an Obama rout.  Still very early to tell though, obviously.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 03:31:11 PM by Bakes »

Offline Dutty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9578
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #74 on: January 27, 2012, 12:39:46 PM »
ah tink allyuh fellahs better start practicing the words --President Colbert
Little known fact: The online transportation medium called Uber was pioneered in Trinidad & Tobago in the 1960's. It was originally called pullin bull.

Offline Daft Trini

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3822
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #75 on: January 27, 2012, 12:46:52 PM »
the only economically viable way for the US to go, it's not going to be pretty in the US and that's why I'm fully invested in Risk Management... China saw a loss of 108 billion in the last quarter and is fearing a housing bubble burst. Economist at the Tsinghua University, are pressuring the Chinese Central Government to cash in on their debts from the US. The The Kuomintang of China also is looking towards a secretive unification with the motherland. The combination of those two economies will dominate the world. let's see what happens  ;)

http://www.economist.com/node/21543160

Emerging-market multinationals
The rise of state capitalism
The spread of a new sort of business in the emerging world will cause increasing problems
Jan 21st 2012 | from the print edition


OVER the past 15 years striking corporate headquarters have transformed the great cities of the emerging world. China Central Television’s building resembles a giant alien marching across Beijing’s skyline; the 88-storey Petronas Towers, home to Malaysia’s oil company, soar above Kuala Lumpur; the gleaming office of VTB, a banking powerhouse, sits at the heart of Moscow’s new financial district. These are all monuments to the rise of a new kind of hybrid corporation, backed by the state but behaving like a private-sector multinational.

State-directed capitalism is not a new idea: witness the East India Company. But as our special report this week points out, it has undergone a dramatic revival. In the 1990s most state-owned companies were little more than government departments in emerging markets; the assumption was that, as the economy matured, the government would close or privatise them. Yet they show no signs of relinquishing the commanding heights, whether in major industries (the world’s ten biggest oil-and-gas firms, measured by reserves, are all state-owned) or major markets (state-backed companies account for 80% of the value of China’s stockmarket and 62% of Russia’s). And they are on the offensive. Look at almost any new industry and a giant is emerging: China Mobile, for example, has 600m customers. State-backed firms accounted for a third of the emerging world’s foreign direct investment in 2003-10.

In this section
»The rise of state capitalism
Salve Italia
The politics of plutocracy
Not quite too late
Light and wrong
Reprints
Related topics
South Africa
Globalisation
Economics
Privatisation and nationalisation
China
With the West in a funk and emerging markets flourishing, the Chinese no longer see state-directed firms as a way-station on the road to liberal capitalism; rather, they see it as a sustainable model. They think they have redesigned capitalism to make it work better, and a growing number of emerging-world leaders agree with them. The Brazilian government, which embraced privatisation in the 1990s, is now interfering with the likes of Vale and Petrobras, and compelling smaller companies to merge to form national champions. South Africa is also flirting with the model.

This development raises two questions. How successful is the model? And what are its consequences—both in, and beyond, emerging markets?

The law of diminishing returns

State capitalism’s supporters argue that it can provide stability as well as growth. Russia’s wild privatisation under Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s alarmed many emerging countries and encouraged the view that governments can mitigate the strains that capitalism and globalisation cause by providing not just the hard infrastructure of roads and bridges but also the soft infrastructure of flagship corporations.

So Lee Kuan Yew’s government in Singapore, an early exponent of this idea, let in foreign firms and embraced Western management ideas, but also owned chunks of companies. The leading practitioner is now China. The tight connection between its government and business will no doubt be on display when the global elite gathers in the Swiss resort of Davos next week. Among Westerners there, government delegates often take the opposite view to those from the private sector: Chinese delegates from both sides tend to have the same point of view, and even the same patriotic talking-points.

The new model bears little resemblance to the disastrous spate of nationalisations in Britain and elsewhere half a century ago. China’s infrastructure companies win contracts the world over. The best national champions are outward-looking, acquiring skills by listing on foreign exchanges and taking over foreign companies. And governments are selective in their corporate holdings. Overall, the Chinese state has loosened its grip on the economy: its bureaucrats concentrate on industries where they can make a difference.

Let a thousand mobiles bloom

Yet a close look at the model shows its weaknesses. When the government favours one lot of companies, the others suffer. In 2009 China Mobile and another state giant, China National Petroleum Corporation, made profits of $33 billion—more than China’s 500 most profitable private companies combined. State giants soak up capital and talent that might have been used better by private companies. Studies show that state companies use capital less efficiently than private ones, and grow more slowly. In many countries the coddled state giants are pouring money into fancy towers at a time when entrepreneurs are struggling to raise capital.

Those costs are likely to rise. State companies are good at copying others, partly because they can use the government’s clout to get hold of their technology; but as they have to produce ideas of their own they will become less competitive. State-owned companies make a few big bets rather than lots of small ones; the world’s great centres of innovation are usually networks of small start-ups.

Nor does the model guarantee stability. State capitalism works well only when directed by a competent state. Many Asian countries have a strong mandarin culture; South Africa and Brazil do not. Coal India is hardly an advertisement for efficiency (see article). And everywhere state capitalism favours well-connected insiders over innovative outsiders. In China highly educated princelings have taken the spoils. In Russia a clique of “bureaugarchs”, often former KGB officials, dominate both the Kremlin and business. Thus the model produces cronyism, inequality and eventually discontent—as the Mubaraks’ brand of state capitalism did in Egypt.

Rising powers have always used the state to kick-start growth: think of Japan and South Korea in the 1950s or Germany in the 1870s or even the United States after the war of independence. But these countries have, over time, invariably found that the system has limits. The Chinese of all people should understand that the best way to learn from history is to look at its long sweep.

But it may take many years for the model’s weaknesses to become obvious; and, in the meantime, it is likely to cause all sorts of problems. Investors in emerging markets, for instance, need to watch out. Some may be taking a punt on governments as much as companies. State-capitalist governments can be capricious, with scant regard for minority shareholders. Others may find their subsidiaries or joint ventures in emerging markets pitted against state-backed favourites.

Another concern is the impact of the model on the global trading system—which, at a time when the likely Republican nominee for president wants to declare China a currency manipulator on his first day of office, is already at risk. Ensuring that trade is fair is harder when some companies enjoy the support, overt or covert, of a national government. Western politicians are beginning to lose patience with state-capitalist powers that rig the system in favour of their own companies.

For emerging countries wanting to make their mark on the world, state capitalism has an obvious appeal. It gives them the clout that private-sector companies would take years to build. But its dangers outweigh its advantages. Both for their own sake, and in the interests of world trade, the practitioners of state capitalism need to start unwinding their huge holdings in favoured companies and handing them over to private investors. If these companies are as good as they boast they are, then they no longer need the crutch of state support.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 12:55:29 PM by Daft Trini »

Offline Brownsugar

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 10179
  • Soca in mih veins, Soca in mih blood!!
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #76 on: January 27, 2012, 02:47:50 PM »
uuuuuuummmm what is the story with Ron Paul??  He always trying but cyar get nominated.....what is he story??
"...If yuh clothes tear up
Or yuh shoes burst off,
You could still jump up when music play.
Old lady, young baby, everybody could dingolay...
Dingolay, ay, ay, ay ay,
Dingolay ay, ay, ay..."

RIP Shadow....The legend will live on in music...

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #77 on: January 27, 2012, 03:32:44 PM »
uuuuuuummmm what is the story with Ron Paul??  He always trying but cyar get nominated.....what is he story??
Same story with Cain, Bachman, Huntsmann, Perry, Santorum (soon enough) et al.

Offline Brownsugar

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 10179
  • Soca in mih veins, Soca in mih blood!!
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #78 on: January 27, 2012, 03:44:58 PM »
uuuuuuummmm what is the story with Ron Paul??  He always trying but cyar get nominated.....what is he story??
Same story with Cain, Bachman, Huntsmann, Perry, Santorum (soon enough) et al.

He crazy??  I thought Independents and some Democrats like him but he just doh go anywhere cuz Republicans doh like him....he too "liberal" for them..... :-\
"...If yuh clothes tear up
Or yuh shoes burst off,
You could still jump up when music play.
Old lady, young baby, everybody could dingolay...
Dingolay, ay, ay, ay ay,
Dingolay ay, ay, ay..."

RIP Shadow....The legend will live on in music...

Offline Dutty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9578
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #79 on: January 27, 2012, 03:47:07 PM »
uuuuuuummmm what is the story with Ron Paul??  He always trying but cyar get nominated.....what is he story??
Same story with Cain, Bachman, Huntsmann, Perry, Santorum (soon enough) et al.

He crazy??  I thought Independents and some Democrats like him but he just doh go anywhere cuz Republicans doh like him....he too "liberal" for them..... :-\

Is de look!! yuh know dem yankee does like dey leaders to appear full of vim and vigor

Paul does remind dem of de old pedophile on 'Family Guy'
Little known fact: The online transportation medium called Uber was pioneered in Trinidad & Tobago in the 1960's. It was originally called pullin bull.

Offline Controversial

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6872
    • View Profile
    • Gino McKoy
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #80 on: January 27, 2012, 03:59:41 PM »
the only economically viable way for the US to go, it's not going to be pretty in the US and that's why I'm fully invested in Risk Management... China saw a loss of 108 billion in the last quarter and is fearing a housing bubble burst. Economist at the Tsinghua University, are pressuring the Chinese Central Government to cash in on their debts from the US. The The Kuomintang of China also is looking towards a secretive unification with the motherland. The combination of those two economies will dominate the world. let's see what happens  ;)

http://www.economist.com/node/21543160

Emerging-market multinationals
The rise of state capitalism
The spread of a new sort of business in the emerging world will cause increasing problems
Jan 21st 2012 | from the print edition


OVER the past 15 years striking corporate headquarters have transformed the great cities of the emerging world. China Central Television’s building resembles a giant alien marching across Beijing’s skyline; the 88-storey Petronas Towers, home to Malaysia’s oil company, soar above Kuala Lumpur; the gleaming office of VTB, a banking powerhouse, sits at the heart of Moscow’s new financial district. These are all monuments to the rise of a new kind of hybrid corporation, backed by the state but behaving like a private-sector multinational.

State-directed capitalism is not a new idea: witness the East India Company. But as our special report this week points out, it has undergone a dramatic revival. In the 1990s most state-owned companies were little more than government departments in emerging markets; the assumption was that, as the economy matured, the government would close or privatise them. Yet they show no signs of relinquishing the commanding heights, whether in major industries (the world’s ten biggest oil-and-gas firms, measured by reserves, are all state-owned) or major markets (state-backed companies account for 80% of the value of China’s stockmarket and 62% of Russia’s). And they are on the offensive. Look at almost any new industry and a giant is emerging: China Mobile, for example, has 600m customers. State-backed firms accounted for a third of the emerging world’s foreign direct investment in 2003-10.

In this section
»The rise of state capitalism
Salve Italia
The politics of plutocracy
Not quite too late
Light and wrong
Reprints
Related topics
South Africa
Globalisation
Economics
Privatisation and nationalisation
China
With the West in a funk and emerging markets flourishing, the Chinese no longer see state-directed firms as a way-station on the road to liberal capitalism; rather, they see it as a sustainable model. They think they have redesigned capitalism to make it work better, and a growing number of emerging-world leaders agree with them. The Brazilian government, which embraced privatisation in the 1990s, is now interfering with the likes of Vale and Petrobras, and compelling smaller companies to merge to form national champions. South Africa is also flirting with the model.

This development raises two questions. How successful is the model? And what are its consequences—both in, and beyond, emerging markets?

The law of diminishing returns

State capitalism’s supporters argue that it can provide stability as well as growth. Russia’s wild privatisation under Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s alarmed many emerging countries and encouraged the view that governments can mitigate the strains that capitalism and globalisation cause by providing not just the hard infrastructure of roads and bridges but also the soft infrastructure of flagship corporations.

So Lee Kuan Yew’s government in Singapore, an early exponent of this idea, let in foreign firms and embraced Western management ideas, but also owned chunks of companies. The leading practitioner is now China. The tight connection between its government and business will no doubt be on display when the global elite gathers in the Swiss resort of Davos next week. Among Westerners there, government delegates often take the opposite view to those from the private sector: Chinese delegates from both sides tend to have the same point of view, and even the same patriotic talking-points.

The new model bears little resemblance to the disastrous spate of nationalisations in Britain and elsewhere half a century ago. China’s infrastructure companies win contracts the world over. The best national champions are outward-looking, acquiring skills by listing on foreign exchanges and taking over foreign companies. And governments are selective in their corporate holdings. Overall, the Chinese state has loosened its grip on the economy: its bureaucrats concentrate on industries where they can make a difference.

Let a thousand mobiles bloom

Yet a close look at the model shows its weaknesses. When the government favours one lot of companies, the others suffer. In 2009 China Mobile and another state giant, China National Petroleum Corporation, made profits of $33 billion—more than China’s 500 most profitable private companies combined. State giants soak up capital and talent that might have been used better by private companies. Studies show that state companies use capital less efficiently than private ones, and grow more slowly. In many countries the coddled state giants are pouring money into fancy towers at a time when entrepreneurs are struggling to raise capital.

Those costs are likely to rise. State companies are good at copying others, partly because they can use the government’s clout to get hold of their technology; but as they have to produce ideas of their own they will become less competitive. State-owned companies make a few big bets rather than lots of small ones; the world’s great centres of innovation are usually networks of small start-ups.

Nor does the model guarantee stability. State capitalism works well only when directed by a competent state. Many Asian countries have a strong mandarin culture; South Africa and Brazil do not. Coal India is hardly an advertisement for efficiency (see article). And everywhere state capitalism favours well-connected insiders over innovative outsiders. In China highly educated princelings have taken the spoils. In Russia a clique of “bureaugarchs”, often former KGB officials, dominate both the Kremlin and business. Thus the model produces cronyism, inequality and eventually discontent—as the Mubaraks’ brand of state capitalism did in Egypt.

Rising powers have always used the state to kick-start growth: think of Japan and South Korea in the 1950s or Germany in the 1870s or even the United States after the war of independence. But these countries have, over time, invariably found that the system has limits. The Chinese of all people should understand that the best way to learn from history is to look at its long sweep.

But it may take many years for the model’s weaknesses to become obvious; and, in the meantime, it is likely to cause all sorts of problems. Investors in emerging markets, for instance, need to watch out. Some may be taking a punt on governments as much as companies. State-capitalist governments can be capricious, with scant regard for minority shareholders. Others may find their subsidiaries or joint ventures in emerging markets pitted against state-backed favourites.

Another concern is the impact of the model on the global trading system—which, at a time when the likely Republican nominee for president wants to declare China a currency manipulator on his first day of office, is already at risk. Ensuring that trade is fair is harder when some companies enjoy the support, overt or covert, of a national government. Western politicians are beginning to lose patience with state-capitalist powers that rig the system in favour of their own companies.

For emerging countries wanting to make their mark on the world, state capitalism has an obvious appeal. It gives them the clout that private-sector companies would take years to build. But its dangers outweigh its advantages. Both for their own sake, and in the interests of world trade, the practitioners of state capitalism need to start unwinding their huge holdings in favoured companies and handing them over to private investors. If these companies are as good as they boast they are, then they no longer need the crutch of state support.

this was always the inevitable..

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #81 on: January 27, 2012, 04:12:22 PM »
He crazy??  I thought Independents and some Democrats like him but he just doh go anywhere cuz Republicans doh like him....he too "liberal" for them..... :-\

Not that he crazy... but rather he lacks viable ideas.  No one can deny the role personality plays as well.  I personally think he's a nice fella... but even if he not crazy, some of the Darwinian policies he espouses certainly are.

Offline Brownsugar

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 10179
  • Soca in mih veins, Soca in mih blood!!
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #82 on: January 27, 2012, 06:09:20 PM »
He crazy??  I thought Independents and some Democrats like him but he just doh go anywhere cuz Republicans doh like him....he too "liberal" for them..... :-\

Not that he crazy... but rather he lacks viable ideas.  No one can deny the role personality plays as well.  I personally think he's a nice fella... but even if he not crazy, some of the Darwinian policies he espouses certainly are.

oooooohhhh.....his "End the Fed" campaign is one such lacking idea??
"...If yuh clothes tear up
Or yuh shoes burst off,
You could still jump up when music play.
Old lady, young baby, everybody could dingolay...
Dingolay, ay, ay, ay ay,
Dingolay ay, ay, ay..."

RIP Shadow....The legend will live on in music...

Offline asylumseeker

  • Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18073
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #83 on: January 30, 2012, 07:24:16 PM »
Campaign ads: part of the story ...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/uYmRCXok8Dc&amp;feature=bf_prev&amp;list=PL8B4B75DFB1979356&amp;lf=results_main" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/uYmRCXok8Dc&amp;feature=bf_prev&amp;list=PL8B4B75DFB1979356&amp;lf=results_main</a>
Michelle Bachmann Introduction ad.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/-IuiEmXoBhI&amp;feature=autoplay&amp;list=PL8B4B75DFB1979356&amp;lf=results_main&amp;playnext=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/-IuiEmXoBhI&amp;feature=autoplay&amp;list=PL8B4B75DFB1979356&amp;lf=results_main&amp;playnext=2</a>
Herman Cain message ad.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/uFQ0OGaoFjQ&amp;feature=autoplay&amp;list=PL8B4B75DFB1979356&amp;lf=results_main&amp;playnext=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/uFQ0OGaoFjQ&amp;feature=autoplay&amp;list=PL8B4B75DFB1979356&amp;lf=results_main&amp;playnext=2</a>
Rick Perry contrast to the incumbent ad.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/biqIuX3uX0U&amp;feature=autoplay&amp;list=PL8B4B75DFB1979356&amp;lf=results_main&amp;playnext=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/biqIuX3uX0U&amp;feature=autoplay&amp;list=PL8B4B75DFB1979356&amp;lf=results_main&amp;playnext=1</a>
Huntsman ID ad.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/s2rMnov4Ae8&amp;feature=bf_prev&amp;list=PL8B4B75DFB1979356&amp;lf=results_main" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/s2rMnov4Ae8&amp;feature=bf_prev&amp;list=PL8B4B75DFB1979356&amp;lf=results_main</a>
Unofficial Ron Paul.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/UUNIeOB0whI" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/UUNIeOB0whI</a>
Ron Paul ID ad.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/jSVi45vfA6o&amp;NR=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/jSVi45vfA6o&amp;NR=1</a>
Ron Paul distinguishing ad.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/cr2KV50BKQQ&amp;feature=related" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/cr2KV50BKQQ&amp;feature=related</a>
Ron Paul message ad.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/SBEuljskKO0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/SBEuljskKO0</a>
Ron Paul attack ad challenging Santorum's credibility.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/a5E_4YnrMs0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/a5E_4YnrMs0</a>
Rick Santorum ID ad with anti-party establishment messaging.

This first clip sets up the second clip:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/XuUvq2ierHE" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/XuUvq2ierHE</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/jVUQuJDEs04&amp;feature=related" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/jVUQuJDEs04&amp;feature=related</a>
Newt Gingrich attack ad challenging Romney's credibility.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/MQst6lQBSbI&amp;feature=related" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/MQst6lQBSbI&amp;feature=related</a>
South Carolina primary ad pushed by Gingrich backers.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/pSkLw6UvpaM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/pSkLw6UvpaM</a>
Newt Gingrich attack ad ... Romney in the doghouse again.

Spanish language ads from the Florida primary ... naturally, the only word you need to understand is "Castro":
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/fDcabgXitRQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/fDcabgXitRQ</a>

"I am Mario-Diaz Balart. Republicans need to elect the best candidate to face President Barack Obama. A candidate that has a plan to jump start the economy and to create jobs. I am convinced that Mitt Romney is that candidate. That's why I support Romney.

I'm Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Mitt Romney will fight the despotic forces of Castro and Chavez. He understands the urgency of stopping them and of increasing our support for the brave heroes who fight for democracy in Cuba. Obama's policies have failed. We need Romney's leadership and conviction to change course in our hemisphere. That's why I support Romney.

I'm Lincoln Diaz-Balart. This year's presidential elections will be decisive in the cause of liberty. We have the responsibility of opposing Barack Obama with the candidate who has the greatest likelihood of winning. That's why I support Romney.

Paid for by Mitt Romney for President, Inc. I'm Mitt Romney, candidate for President, and I approved this message."


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/a1_taR9pl5s&amp;feature=relmfu" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/a1_taR9pl5s&amp;feature=relmfu</a>
"Newt Gingrich claims to be a Reagan conservative. Let's examine the facts. Gingrich said he wouldn't change the failed Obama policy on travel to Cuba that has served to fill Castro's tyrannical pockets and to increase repression on the island.

I don't believe that Reagan would agree with Gingrich. Gingrich profited from Freddie Mac, one of the major sources of the foreclosure crisis that wreaked immense damage within our community. Reagan would never have partnered with Nancy Pelosi - as Gingrich did - to advance the agenda of the extreme left-wing, and Reagan never would have offended the Hispanic community - as Gingrich did - by saying that Spanish is the language of the ghetto.

Now as he seeks votes, Gingrich wants to change his story, but the facts speak for themselves.

Paid for by Mitt Romney for President, Inc.  I'm Mitt Romney, candidate for President, and I approved this message."


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/w/v/Rn6Oe19c7_k" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/w/v/Rn6Oe19c7_k</a>
Non-Castro themed Spanish language ad targeted to "us".

"The United States represents liberty, opportunity ... where anything is possible. I'm Craig Romney. My father, Mitt Romney, believes in these American values because he has lived them, and he will fight to restore the greatness of our nation.

Former Congressman Lincoln-Diaz-Balart: Romney has a plan to create new jobs.

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: Romney has the vision to restore the national security of this country.

Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart: Romney believes in us.

I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message. Many thanks."


Post #5000.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 07:18:09 AM by asylumseeker »

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #84 on: January 30, 2012, 07:32:41 PM »
Once dem damn Republicans continue to self loathe and hold debates, re-electing Obama is a sure thing

Offline ribbit

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4294
  • T & T We Want A Goal !
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #85 on: January 31, 2012, 01:05:19 PM »
wall street find a real padnah with de prez. and dey get him cheap too. unless one of dese GOP could muscle in on dat backing, dem eh have a prayer. speaking of prayer, dem evangelicals eh coming out to support romney and women eh supporting gingrinch. so de GOP frontrunners eh have a hope in any case. congrats to de prez. hopefully is a good set a republican in congress :devil:

Offline ribbit

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4294
  • T & T We Want A Goal !
    • View Profile
Re: Will President Obama be re-elected?
« Reply #86 on: February 11, 2012, 05:41:20 PM »
well dat mortgage deal met with deafening silence. banks and de 1% get a 650B bligh from de prez securing he next term. ah have to give credit to t&t; when ah see how de soca warriors going through de proper legal channels to ensure dere contract was fulfilled it strikes such a marked contrast to how "business" with an american bank plays out in de usa. and dis is not de first time either - is a real 4king joke of a system dey have in de usa.


truetrini

  • Guest
Re: A Conservative Perspective: Obama and 2016
« Reply #88 on: March 25, 2012, 12:07:13 AM »
3:37 IS THE MOST TELLING...ALMOST AT THE END OF OBAMA'S TERM....His first term....!

Even this cock sucker immigrant ass knows Obama will have a second term.

No f**king way these suck ass money grabbing republican cunnies winning.  For all the paranoia, and misinformation, and lies, and suspicion these bastards trying to instil.....Barack will ride the love to victory.

Millions of Republicans doing what they can to make one american man lose his job, while f**king millions of americans out of employment.

This is total assholery.

This c**t saying Obama should have used the military to intervene in IRAN???

TI, why you even posting the ka ka hole shit here man.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2012, 12:09:56 AM by truetrini SC »

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: A Conservative Perspective: Obama and 2016
« Reply #89 on: March 25, 2012, 12:10:57 AM »
If I see that asshole I will hit he two Sam like slap in he c**t.

seriously this man and people like him really piss me off...I have a theory....stinking f**ker.

Quote
At the conclusion of a commentary article for Forbes magazine about President Barack Obama, D'Souza writes: "...Our President is trapped in his father's time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost."

''And then this smacks of racism too!   :   
Quote
He also takes this a step further and challenges the notion that all world cultures are equal. "If one begins with the multicultural premise that all cultures are equal, then the world as it is makes very little sense," he says. "Some cultures have completely outperformed others in providing the things that all people seek -- health, food, housing, security and the amenities of life."

And to me this one takes the cake..steups.  : 
Quote
"Groups like the ACLU, with the acquiescence if not collusion of the courts, are actively promoting a jurisprudence of anti-religious discrimination. In a way the Supreme Court has distorted the Constitution to make religious believers of all faiths into second-class citizens." D'Souza argues that by enforcing the separation of church and state, the government unfairly promotes secularism.[/
« Last Edit: March 25, 2012, 12:25:40 AM by truetrini SC »

 

1]; } ?>