Jump to content

Usa Thread


TroyinEwa/Perv
 Share

Recommended Posts

For me its not that a person can change things in the constitution its that they would change some things if they could. Or make some things legal or illegal that I don't agree with, even if they don't have the votes. What they believe is important, not what will or won't get passed.

 

I'll admit to being tuned out but why dind't Obama get congressional approval for Libya? I would assume Congress would be for helping militarily without troops on the ground (save the special forces and black ops team we probably have). Was there a reason why he didn't? I do recall talk of impeachment but I don't think it had any legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama was advised that he did not need Congressional approval over his military involvement in Libya. That advice is clearly wrong, but it seems these days he only listens to certain people. :(

 

FDR tried to pull a fast one with the Supreme Court in the 1930s, after it ruled several of his programmes to be unconstitutional. He tried to increase the number of SC justices, so that he could have a majority who would let him do whatever he wanted - and the Constitution be damned! He rightfully caught hell over it and had to give up his attempt to overthrow the balance of power between the three branches of the federal govmt. I have never held FDR in the same regard as many of that generation did. He was just another politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama was advised that he did not need Congressional approval over his military involvement in Libya. That advice is clearly wrong, but it seems these days he only listens to certain people. :(

 

FDR tried to pull a fast one with the Supreme Court in the 1930s, after it ruled several of his programmes to be unconstitutional. He tried to increase the number of SC justices, so that he could have a majority who would let him do whatever he wanted - and the Constitution be damned! He rightfully caught hell over it and had to give up his attempt to overthrow the balance of power between the three branches of the federal govmt. I have never held FDR in the same regard as many of that generation did. He was just another politician.

 

 

I believe that's debatable otherwise Obama would have been impeached. So the poltroon or simply obstructionist Congress would have abandoned the Libyan people on a technicality? Good job he's the man to make important decisions. But for Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron thousands more innocent civilians would have been raped, tortured and murdered when Gaddafi's forces were at the gates of Benghazi, and the dictator and his henchmen would still be in power today stronger than ever.

 

Whereas Bushit, Cheney and Rumsfeld spent months concocting phoney excuses to invade Iraq in a completely useless war costing thousands of American, Allied and Iraqi lives, and the plunging the US economy into an abyss.

 

BTW HH owes me a certain bridge off the west coast of USA. He said with such certainty that Obama's decision would lead to American ground troops being involved. But Obama has demonstrated how military campaigns should be properly conducted.

 

When you have dismantled the bridge, HH, please could you re-erect it between my balcony window and Walking Street.

 

:beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foreign policy wise Obaama has done a fairly good job. It was one of the main things it was argued he'd be weak in. A lot of things are common sense. Also, nowadays Presidents have access to experts, think tanks, people who have studied certain countries, conflicts, etc. of all manner of places and just about anyone on here could make a sound decision when presented with all the facts. Libya and Egypt were no brainers. Obama did the logical thing and supported the uprisings.

 

The election are going to be dire. Its an important one economically and it will deteriorate into a nasty political fight. My fear is either candidate won't have a clue. My fear is whoever wins makes things worse. Its not like '96 no matter who was elected, the economy was roaring and you couldn't f8ck it up if you tried.

 

This economy is so f*cked up that the best economists are at odds. I'm not convinced that the 'typical' Republican cures for a bad economy will work. I fear they may make things worse for some people. I'm also equally unconvinced that the Dems will cut waste. Maybe even moreso.

 

I fear no matter who wins the next 4 or more years will see us worse off. However, anything can happen. Usually its something out of the control, unforseen that sets off an economy. No one forsaw the '90s tech boom. I'm hoping something similar happens that gets us out of the mess. The one thing America still has are great minds and people willing to take risks. There is always some product, service, etc. that catches the public imagination or changes our lives in some form or fashion that ignites things. We could use such a moment now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure Congress would have approved the Libya action - which makes Obama's failure to gain approval so strange. Rightly or wrongly, it looked like a presidential grab of power. Maybe he thought refusing made him look strong, but instead it made him look nitpicking. "We are not on the ground [officially], so I don't need approval to send the military into action and keep them past the time limit." Huh?

 

p.s. Congress was not about to impeach Obama over his refusal, since 1) if probably would fail, 2) it might gain him sympathy and more votes and 3) no one considered it that big a matter. I suppose one should also consider that removing Obama from office would make Joe Biden president! :yikes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaked Cables Offer Glimpses Into Relations of U.S. and China

 

 

BEIJING — This capital city’s skies were clogged with pollution, as is often the case, and China’s government was concerned. So it summoned officials of the American Embassy here to a meeting.

 

But the session had nothing to do with hazy skies. Rather, Chinese officials were peeved that the Americans were monitoring pollution themselves and posting on Twitter for anyone to read their more precise findings, which usually judged the smog far worse than official Chinese readings.

 

Chinese officials feared the conflicting information “might lead to ‘social consequences,’†an American Embassy cable quoted the officials as saying. So could the Americans please block Chinese citizens from visiting the Web site?

 

That July 2009 cable, posted on the WikiLeaks Web site on Friday, is one of hundreds from the American Embassy in Beijing that offer a glimpse into the depths, and heights, of relations between the United States and Chinese governments. The cables, involving secret but not very diplomatically delicate correspondence between the two powers, cover topics ranging from China’s claims on the South China Sea to the daily exercise regimen that the Chongqing Communist Party secretary, Bo Xilai, designed for himself.

 

Their revelation appears unlikely to ruffle diplomatic relations. But they could lead to serious consequences for Chinese academics, students and others who talked frankly to American officials, and who are identified, either by name or by precise description, in cables dealing with analyses of Chinese positions.

 

The New York Times and other newspapers had previously reproduced some of the cables, redacting the identities of people who might be endangered should their names become known. But WikiLeaks, by mistake, later released the entire trove of secret State Department cables that it obtained last year, complete with the names of confidential sources, which were then reposted last week on numerous Web sites.

 

Among the cables that named confidential sources were analyses of China’s social stability, the isolated political position of the prime minister, Wen Jiabao, and tensions between China’s majority Han population and ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang, the western region that has been plagued by violence in recent years.

 

Most of those sources’ comments were unremarkable. But the fact that they were made to American government officials could draw harsh punishment in some cases.

 

The cables span the tenure of two American presidents and one Chinese, Hu Jintao. A number of them have been previously made public. They describe a crucial global relationship that is warm in some aspects and conspicuously icy in others.

 

One lengthy report on 2009 military talks between the Pentagon and the People’s Liberation Army noted that the senior Chinese official, Lt. Gen. Ma Xiaotian, prolonged an hour long discussion by an additional 30 minutes to attack American arms sales to Taiwan and American military reconnaissance within China’s claimed 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone.

 

General Ma also said China’s analysts did not believe that American missile defenses were in fact defensive, arguing that they could also be used as an anti-satellite force, and that American controls over its nuclear arsenal were inadequate.

 

The cables include a stream of messages from American to Chinese officials about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile technology, usually from North Korea or from Chinese companies to Iran. In cable after cable, Americans warn of attempts by an Iranian front company in Malaysia to purchase nuclear components; a North Korean flight to Iran, via Beijing, that may have carried ballistic missile experts; and Iranian efforts to buy aluminum plates from a Chinese company for use in cruise missiles. Other cables cited Chinese companies’ efforts to sell prohibited technologies or materials to Pakistan.

 

What the Chinese did with the warnings is not stated. In some cables, Chinese officials repeated the government’s firm commitment to control nuclear and missile proliferation, and pledged to pass the messages to relevant agencies. In others, they expressed doubts about the veracity or completeness of American information.

 

And in several cases, the American Embassy was forced to use go-betweens in the Chinese government, apparently because Chinese arms-control offices had suspended contacts with Washington in the wake of American weapons sales to Taiwan.

 

 

My link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure Congress would have approved the Libya action - which makes Obama's failure to gain approval so strange. Rightly or wrongly, it looked like a presidential grab of power. Maybe he thought refusing made him look strong, but instead it made him look nitpicking. "We are not on the ground [officially], so I don't need approval to send the military into action and keep them past the time limit." Huh?

 

p.s. Congress was not about to impeach Obama over his refusal, since 1) if probably would fail, 2) it might gain him sympathy and more votes and 3) no one considered it that big a matter. I suppose one should also consider that removing Obama from office would make Joe Biden president! :yikes:

 

That's not how I recall events unfolding on Fox Noise or on this forum, with certain rednecks criticising Obama at the time..

 

..at first for not acting while protesters were slaughtered

..then reluctant praise for him joining France and Britain in the bombing, but... it was probably all Hilary's idea anyway.. and why are the French leading us.

..then the isolationists "Why has Obama got us into another war?" even though he had said no ground troops.''unlike Bushit's reckless futile war

.. then one of Fox Noise's so called experts suggested he was fighting the wrong tyrant, why not start a war with Syria and Iran as well?

 

We all know what would have happened if Obama had delayed his life saving decision. Congress would have shilly-shallied for weeks (just as they did over the debt ceiling issue simply to score a few political points) while innocents were massacred.

 

"While Speaker of House John Boehner said that the U.S. has a “moral obligation†to help those standing up to Qaddafi, he also expressed concern that the administration has not outlined a clear mission in Libya.

 

“Because of the conflicting messages from the administration and our coalition partners, there is a lack of clarity over the objectives of this mission, what our national security interests are, and how it fits into our overarching policy for the Middle East. The American people deserve answers to these questions,†Boehner wrote, adding that “it is regrettable that no opportunity was afforded to consult with congressional leaders.â€

 

:beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I think Congressional Republicans would have done all it can to hurt Obama politically over Libya had he gone to Congress. However, it doesn't excuse not doing the right thing constitutionally.

Its sad that an event that all parties agree on would probably have been mired in political jabs and blows before anything meaningful would happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/now-u-postal-belly-153600714.html

The U.S. Postal Service is projected to lose $11 billion this year, and it's running out of cash.

Barring a bailout or massive restructuring, the Postal Service says, the organization may stop operating early next year.

Approaching this problem intelligently starts with analyzing what's wrong with the USPS. And the answer, according to the New York Times, is twofold:

The volume of physical mail has dropped more than 20% in the last five years and is projected to keep on dropping, thanks to vastly more efficient information delivery via the Internet

The US Postal Service's compensation and benefits contracts with its employees leave it unable to reduce its costs fast enough

The current situation of the organization is obviously a major problem, not just for the Postal Service, but for the country. The U.S. Postal Service employs 653,000 people, and with the national unemployment rate already running over 9%, the country can't afford to lose more jobs. Thanks to the Postal Service's generous benefits and pensions, moreover, these are "good" jobs--ones that pay employees far better than they might get from private organizations.

But these jobs are one reason the U.S. Postal Service's labor costs are 80% of its total expenses, versus an average of 53% and 35% for private competitors like UPS and FedEx, respectively. And they're also the reason that the only way out of the U.S. Postal Service's current mess is to vastly restructure its operations, reducing the organization's workforce and labor costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...