Goner Message Board
 | Forums | Register | Reply | Search | Statistics | Manual |
Goner Message Board / ???? / Thanks Obama
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 12:16 pm
For nothing. Worst President ever.
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 12:22 pm
total backstabber! Obama sucks..
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 2:02 pm
he has sucked mightily. but two words:

President Palin.
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 2:04 pm
john mccain is dead?
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 2:20 pm
He's dead to me.
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 2:31 pm
Ian Mackaye for president!
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 2:36 pm
Ian McLagan for president!
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 2:39 pm
Ian Gillan for president! (or maybe not)
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 3:04 pm
Ian Stewart for president!
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 3:39 pm
Ian Ziering for President!
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 3:45 pm
!an Thorpe for preseident (of waterworld)!
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 4:13 pm
Janis Ian for president!
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 4:25 pm
Scott Ian for President!
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 5:20 pm
kevorkian for president!
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 5:27 pm
president mash up the resident!

Posted: Nov 4, 2009 5:35 pm
Janis & Scott Ian running together would make quite a team!
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 5:43 pm
This country doesn't need any more presidents.
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 5:45 pm
as far as being the worst.. Bush will always be the worst.
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 5:56 pm
the next republican president might be worse. wait until there starts being food shortages and fuel rationing, people will rush to elect the first benign dictator that promises to keep the lights on and gas in everyone's SUV so we can continue living our unsustainable lifestyle a few more years. its easy to be an idealist when you can afford it, but take away a few of our creature comforts and we will be happy to continue resource wars. half the citizens of this country will probably consider bush to have been one of our best presidents in a couple years, because he set us up strategically in geopolitically important places with military bases we will be able to use to set up an oil grab.
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 6:30 pm
Posted: Nov 4, 2009 10:54 pm
Unsustainable Lifestyle, Whoa-ah-oah!
Unsustainable Lifestyle!
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 12:19 am
its unsustainable
its unsustainable

unsustainable, yeah
unsustainable, yeah

its unsustainable

Posted: Nov 5, 2009 12:20 am
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 12:30 am | Edited by: bradx
waking up in the afternoon
there aint nothin i gotta do
got no job and got no cash
drink some beer and smoke some hash

(its an) unsustainable lifestyle (woah woah)
(living an) unsustainable lifestyle (woah woah)

its unsustainable
its unsustainable

unsustainable, yeah
unsustainable, yeah


its unsustainable,

unsustainable lifestyle


i dont ever leave my yard
this life i lead is really hard
now im lying on the floor
cant go on this way no more

(its an) unsustainable lifestyle (woah woah)
(living an) unsustainable lifestyle (woah woah)

its unsustainable
its unsustainable

unsustainable, yeah
unsustainable, yeah


its unsustainable,

unsustainable lifestyle

Posted: Nov 5, 2009 5:49 am
and starting wars is good??? W started 2 fucking wars.........2 "un-popoular wars".
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 7:37 am
Ian Svenonius for president. At least he would be honest about destroying America.
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 10:33 am
Ian Faith for President

"It wasn't a glove, believe me."
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 10:44 am
Ian Paisley NOT for president.
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 3:12 pm
Paisley Park for President.

(Prince does not suck!)
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 3:49 pm
What has he done/not done that has you all butt flossing? Seems like he is the same or beter than the last five presidents only a little blacker. Must be that last one
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 3:54 pm
and he's only been in office for 9 months.
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 4:27 pm
Ian Svenonius for president. At least he would be honest about destroying America.

and be sanctimoniously annoying while going about it.
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 4:36 pm
I agree with Dutch.... No more presidents, we need a mujhadeen instead
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 4:53 pm
The point is that he hasn't done anything-except bail out the suits and stab the middle class in the back. And there's nothing racist about holding somebody accountable for his job. Equality means having the opportunity to suck too.
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 4:55 pm
and he's only been in office for 9 months.
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 4:58 pm
yeah, I'm sure "Riggler" would be getting this country back on track --- AND in under one year...
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 5:53 pm
and he's only been in office for 9 months.

In 9 months he's managed to pursue the renewal of key parts of the Patriot Act by years end. He's bombed the fuck out of Pakistan. Has pursued his own war in Afghanistan of which he is going to escalate by deploying 40,000+ more troops and spending billions while our country suffers record foreclosures and a health care crisis. Has gone against his word on Guantanamo and Iraq. Is still practicing renditions. And remember when he used to talk about a Single Payer Option? Now he alludes that the health system is too big and a single payer option would only disrupt it in a way that would be detrimental. Huh?! The continued blind support of Israel. He has blatantly tossed out the promise of diplomacy in regards to Iran. W gets the strap for all the deregulation and stripping of civil liberties. Now that all of that is in place, Obama gets to exploit it under the radar.

I could go on, but personally, I could care less and actually cheer the end of the world.

Just saying.
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 5:58 pm
Oops! The above post was actually by me. My fucktard coworker timbo doesn't know how to log the fuck out.
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 6:10 pm
the end of the world

It won't be the end of the world, just the end of us. The world will probably be better off.
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 6:16 pm
In almost every instance you've cited- it's more a matter of him being in over his head and having promised things that seemed easy and in reality are far more complex that he thought (or I thought). Except Isreal I have no clue what he is doing there. And Iranian diplomacy was NEVER going to happen have you heard the shit coming out of that batshithole? They murder gays and think they are going to get blow jobs for killing their neighbors. He may have been wrong but again- compare him to any president you have lived through and tell me he is any worse
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 7:05 pm
Not the worst. The guy can articulate himself and he's got rhythm. But so far he's picked up where Bush left off and we still have over three years

Like I said, I could care less. I'm more interested in practicing shitty punk rock in about an hour and toasting end times.
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 7:12 pm
business as usual, what a surprise?

Not the worst. The guy can articulate himself and he's got rhythm. But so far he's picked up where Bush left off and we still have over three years

Like I said, I could care less. I'm more interested in practicing shitty punk rock in about an hour and toasting end times.

A fucking men, that's where I'm at
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 7:14 pm
If you're REALLY sore about it you could always start a political hardcore/crust band.
http://www.profaneexistence.org/community/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4102&st art=40&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 10:01 pm
how about giving unaccountable billions to the banks that purposely crashed our economy in the first place? nice fucking stimulus plan, dipshit. our national debt is now more than 50 times our GDP, we cant even pay the interest on the shit and its mathematically impossible for us to ever pay it off. USA, by the banksters, of the banksters, and for the banksters.
Posted: Nov 5, 2009 11:49 pm | Edited by: Rich Balls
How about when Bush gave tax breaks to billionaires, then decided to start a war .... that helped.
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 12:13 am
yeah, bush was bad, so somehow that makes obama good?

oh yeah, on the subject of war, obama is escalating war in afghanistan/pakistan, and his war "defense" budget is bigger than any of bush's.

$58 BILLION in US taxpayer $$$ to FOREIGN banks.

obama is a tool of the banksters. they are looting us as much or more as they were under bush. we are fighting more wars, the economy is set to shit the bed as soon as the obama honeymoon is over, and worse than any of us has ever seen.

now that the banksters know they can blackmail the US govt into handing them hundreds of billions, where is the incentive for them to change their ways? no, in fact now the banks will be even more foolish with their money because they know the government will bail them out if they are in danger of failing, and there is no personal accountability! the CEOs and top bosses rake in tens of millions in personal wealth each year while making decisions they know will eventually fuck us all over, but they dont care, and why should they?

its all a scam by the big money motherfuckers to redistribute the wealth of everyone else to themselves! its not americans who run america anymore, its the banksters, and obama is their puppet.

Posted: Nov 6, 2009 12:17 am
That sounds like a George Clooney movie! sell that script.
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 12:47 am
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 1:18 am
in other words, obama is proof positive that democrat or republican, we are fucked. neither party is willing to work against the corporate interests that are both stealing from and enslaving us. the interest on our national debt is a billion dollars a day and we are sinking further into debt two billion dollars a day.

at least you could say bush was stupid, but obama is a constitutional fucking lawyer. he knows the constitution, and swore to uphold it and then went and did the exact opposite. he's only been in office a year, and thats long enough to turn his back on everything people voted him in to change. he's a liar and a fraud.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aNMQDysdnKRc&refer =home

By the end of 2007, the banksters had created $596 trillion in over-the-counter derivatives - 12 times the value of the gross planetary product of Earth. Bailout is a nonsensical proposition.

do you understand how money is created? have you read about derivatives? the derivatives market is worth more on paper than the total financial assets of the entire world! how can it possibly do anything BUT fail???

Derivatives massively leverage the debt in an economy, making it ever more difficult for the underlying real economy to service its debt obligations, thereby curtailing real economic activity, which can cause a recession or even depression. In the view of Marriner S. Eccles, U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman from November, 1934 to February, 1948, too high a level of debt was one of the primary causes of the 1920s-30s Great Depression.

i always thought when you went to a bank and took out a loan, that that money actually existed and they were borrowing it to you. not so. that money is created out of thin air, based on your promise to repay it. not only do they materialize the money they lend you out of thin air, but in doing so, they are also able to lend 4 or 5 times that amount to other people, because your debt increases their imaginary reserves. then it goes on down the line through multiple banks until it is 400 times the amount of your original loan. it is literally spent into existence. theyve been doing this kind of shit for years, and its scary. (fractional reserve lending)

...central bank money is used to create commercial bank money from an initial deposit of $100 of central bank money. In the example, the initial deposit is lent out 10 times with a fractional-reserve rate of 20% to ultimately create $400 of commercial bank money. Each successive bank involved in this process creates new commercial bank money...

The process begins when an initial $100 deposit of central bank money is made into Bank A. Bank A takes 20 percent of it, or $20, and sets it aside as reserves, and then loans out the remaining 80 percent, or $80. At this point money supply actually totals $180, not $100; because the bank has loaned out $80 of the central bank money, kept $20 of central bank money in reserve (not part of the money supply), and substituted a newly created $100 IOU claim for the depositor that acts equivalently to and can be implicitly redeemed for central bank money...

At this point, Bank A now only has $20 of central bank money on its books. The loan recipient is holding $80 in central bank money, but he soon spends the $80. The receiver of that $80 then deposits it into Bank B. Bank B is now in the same situation as Bank A started with, except it has a deposit of $80 of central bank money instead of $100. Similar to Bank A, Bank B sets aside 20 percent of that $80, or $16, as reserves and lends out the remaining $64, increasing money supply by $64. As the process continues, more commercial bank money is created.

as you can plainly see, the commonly accepted "fractional reserve" banking practice is nothing less than a PYRAMID SCHEME! its unsustainable.

there are so many plainly fraudulent practices the banksters are using to fuck us. anyways, our dollars are about to be worthless, and it scares the shit outta people in other countries who are heavily into dollars. they are ALL looking for a way out without losing too much on what they already have invested.

we already created such an incredible mass of imaginary money that we will never be able to dig ourselves out. helicopter ben bernacke is printing more money than ever before, and every year it grows exponentially. yes, i said exponentially. that shit is scary if you know anything at all about math.

"The amount of money printed in the past few months since the October economic crisis, has been absolutely unprecedented in U.S. history. "Since September, the 'monetary base,' which is the measure of currency plus bank reserves, has doubled from about $850 billion to $1.7 trillion."

foreigners already own over 3 trillion in US assets, the banksters are not american and do not respect our sovereignty. they owe their allegiance to nobody, they are accountable to nobody, and they make the real decisions that guide our public policy, and they are unelected. money rules.


...the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller, in an address to the Trilateral Commission meeting, 1991.

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." (Mayer Amschel Rothschild)

heres the real truth:

international banksters materialize money out of thin air. they lend it to you and me and joe entrepreneur all across america. we use it to buy property, or other things of real value. they know many of us will be unable to pay the loans off, and they foreclose, thereby converting imaginary money into real wealth, ie: assets and property.

the federal reserve is a private organization. we need to take back the printing presses and nationalize our currency before it is too late. hyperinflation WILL be a FACT during obamas term otherwise.

"Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile . . . Once a nation parts with control of its credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws . . . Usury once in control will wreck any nation." - William Lyon MacKenzie King, former Prime Minister of Canada (who also succeeded in nationalizing the Bank of Canada).
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 9:34 am
Now all brad X has to do is memorize that last post and growl it behind a blastbeat. The band could be called Disconsin.
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 10:14 am
Ian Svenonius for president. At least he would be honest about destroying America.

and be sanctimoniously annoying while going about it.

...while using a bunch of circa 1992 postmodern critical theory language that no one gave a shit about in the first place, except a bunch of upper middle class trust fund brats like Ian Svenonius.

And I'm clearly on a "wait & see" basis in regards to the total suckage of Obama as a prez. He needs to quit the old conciliatory BS immediately; it isn't going to work in this political/economic climate.
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 10:46 am
From what I have read, technically, the worst president in the past 30 years was Carter.
George W, overall, is in the middle of the pack for all presidents as far as revenue, spending, overall GDP, etc.
He was a piece of shit at the end, but the numbers support him.
Strange thing.
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 11:14 am
He was a piece of shit at the end, but the numbers support him
Where are these numbers! Site yer source on this.
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 11:15 am
And Carter inherited a deeply FUCKED economy.
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 11:19 am
Carter's term was every progressive's nightmare. He actually wanted to get shit done and thought he knew exactly how to do it. When the other folks on capitol hill saw that he was serious, they just shut his ass down. Republicans and Democrats. He was practically a lame duck his entire term. I don't think Obama has been great so far but I don't think he's been terrible and I'm willing to wait before I pass judgement on the guy.
I think Obama's spending an awful lot of time trying to figure how to ride the line and "not be Carter". On one level I'd like to see Obama show some idealism and charge ahead with some major changes. On the other hand I know exactly what would happen. Carter.
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 11:27 am
Hate the game, not the player, yo!
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 11:58 am
Carter was horrible. He put all the nuclear reactors all around the country. Plus he wanted to have a war in the Middle East years before the Bush's. I had to register for the draft when I was a senior in high school or couldn't go to college. They all suck.
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 12:13 pm
I heard the report today --- unemployment highest since 1982 WHEN REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT.

and the way the fucktards lionize ole numbnuts Ronnie, you'd never hear the last "worst recession ever" was entirely his doing.
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 12:13 pm
also, his wife is an idiot, still
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 12:16 pm
our system is in gridlock.

the vindictive and scorched-earth Repugnicans are to blame. Their "social agenda" should be the enemy of every American who believes that our Constitution is still a viable framework for running a democracy.
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 1:03 pm
Today's teabagger party:

...demonstrators chanted "Weasel Queen," their pet name for the speaker of the House. Others wore masks of Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.); they were covered in fake blood and carrying dolls representing aborted fetuses, as the Grim Reaper led them in chains to hell.

In the front of the protest, a sign showed President Obama in white coat, his face painted to look like the Joker. ... A few steps farther was the guy holding a sign announcing "Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds" [sic], accusing Obama of being part of a Jewish plot to introduce the antichrist.

But the best of Bachmann's recruits were a few rows into the crowd, holding aloft a pair of 5-by-8-foot banners proclaiming "National Socialist Healthcare, Dachau, Germany, 1945." Both banners showed close-up photographs of Holocaust victims, many of them children.

Immediately in front of this colorful scenery, various House Republicans signed autographs and shook hands with the demonstrators. Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.), who recently said the health-care bill is more dangerous than terrorists, gave out stickers ..."
Posted: Nov 6, 2009 1:15 pm
the vindictive and scorched-earth Repugnicans are to blame. Their "social agenda" should be the enemy of every American who believes that our Constitution is still a viable framework for running a democracy.

Agreed. The constant without context Thomas Jefferson quoting is infuriating and their willful ignorance can only be topped by Herbert Hoover circa 1930.
Posted: Nov 9, 2009 8:56 am | Edited by: Uptight White
and be sanctimoniously annoying while going about it.

Hah! Or his prattling on about his schoolboy crush on an ideology, after it's institution, that became the catalyst for the slaughter of an estimated 120 Million worldwide during the 20th century.
Posted: Nov 9, 2009 10:48 am
In 9 months he's managed to...
pretty soon you can add "allowed a terrorist attack on US soil" to that list...
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terro rists-officials/story?id=9030873

Posted: Nov 9, 2009 11:47 am
That sounds like a George Clooney movie! sell that script.

Speaking of, saw the trailer to whatever his new movie is last night during "Mad Men" and George C has reached the age where he does NOT need to have bare chest scenes. His hair and face still look great, but ai yi yi, keep the shirt on.
Posted: Nov 9, 2009 1:41 pm
the banksters.

Is that the name of a band?
Posted: Nov 9, 2009 3:10 pm
Where are these numbers! Site yer source on this.

I am looking for the link right now. Coming soon.
Posted: Nov 9, 2009 9:35 pm
Hey, y'all! Cut the prez some slack, jack. President or some other, a brotha's got to do what a brotha's got to do, even if it does mean he's gotta rob ya motha.
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 7:00 am

I am looking for the link right now. Coming soon.

This didn't work out ....
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 10:13 am
You're a bankster. Bankster! Wheeeee!
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 10:46 am
The Saints are 8-0, who cares about this shit!
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 1:01 pm
Im really to retarded to say much about politics, this is as far as I go. Duh.
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 2:22 pm
As long as we don't invade any more countries Obama has done good...when you consider the fucked up mess he was handed, he's done a great job of not making bad situations worse...anybody who disagrees is a fucktard.
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 4:29 pm
he is increasing troop levels in afghanistan. if you think that is a good idea, you are an idiot.
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 4:39 pm
he is increasing troop levels in afghanistan

You saying you think it would go well if we just walked out? I'm not saying it's necessarily the worst idea but it would be a fantastic fucking mess
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 4:50 pm
he is increasing troop levels in afghanistan.

How else are we gonna secure all of the opium?
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 7:13 pm
i'm saying we cant possibly win, and eventually its going to be a fucking mess anyways. the only question now is how long we stay and how many more dead americans and innocent afghanis to be slaughtered.
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 7:28 pm
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 7:48 pm
Obama: Health Care Plan Would Give Seniors Right To Choose How They Are Killed

my parents aren't 65 yet. who do i write to to ask if they'll lower the minimum murder age?
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 11:49 pm
he is increasing troop levels in afghanistan. if you think that is a good idea, you are an idiot.
Yeah, we should stick to blowing up Iraq --- mmmm k
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 11:58 pm
it could be argued that he was stuck with that war and it will take him time to find the way out, but there is no excuse for increasing wars in iraq or afghani/pakistan.
Posted: Nov 11, 2009 12:51 am
Posted: Nov 11, 2009 9:47 am
He ran on a platform of ending the Wars. Now you can see he has no intention of doing so. Business as usual. Change you can't believe in.
Posted: Nov 11, 2009 10:46 am
I could be wrong, but I could've sworn Obama said he was going to increase troop levels in Afghanistan when he was running for President.

If McCain were prez there would probably be sabre rattling going on with Iran anyway.
Posted: Nov 11, 2009 11:20 am
Afghanistan: "Graveyard of Empires"
Posted: Nov 11, 2009 11:20 am
Compared to how everybody thought things were gonna change, life in America still feels pretty much like it did with George Bush as President. Not much has changed. I guess I was hoping for more. Oh, well.
Posted: Nov 11, 2009 12:10 pm
dude has inherited some absolutely hellacious problems though. i can armchair QB all day, but none of really knows what's going down in the West Wing.

Not like that idiot W who inherited a surplus and a booming economy... sure, 9/11 would've slowed anyone's roll, but as mentioned upthread - there's a lot of specualtion (yep, speculation) that another administration might have kept their ear a little closer to the ground.

**tin foil hat time**
and, at the risk of sounding like a crank, W's neocon advisors were on some serious Bill Kristol/ PNAC shit before W even took office. This is the guy who's been shouting about the need to "establish a strong presence" ini the Middle East for some time. It was (IS) an unpoplular notion, and Kristol et al knew the only way to sell it would be a perceived threat or "some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."

What a Fucking Sleazeag. at the very least, Obama doesn't pay much heed to these kinds of jackholes.
Posted: Nov 11, 2009 12:23 pm
I liked Bill Clinton aside from his being a puppet of Walmart and allowing untold amounts of American jobs to go to China. He was the best President of my lifetime I guess (Kennedy to present).
Posted: Nov 11, 2009 12:38 pm
I liked Bill Clinton aside from his being a puppet of Walmart and allowing untold amounts of American jobs to go to China. He was the best President of my lifetime I guess (Kennedy to present).

That and the Telecommunications Deregulation Act of 1996 were/are my big problems with the Clinton administration.
Posted: Nov 11, 2009 1:28 pm
Coming from someone who voted for Bill Clinton--once with glee and the second time with a shrug--and whose mother worked for him since the early 80's in Arkansas (and still adores him), Clinton had a big part in some serious fuckups. The TANF legislation, NAFTA and his ignoring the issue of health care in every way possible following the initial slapdown are just three massive reasons the man has lost a chunk of my respect.
Posted: Nov 11, 2009 3:31 pm | Edited by: bradx
at the very least, Obama doesn't pay much heed to these kinds of jackholes.

no, he pays much heed to different jackholes. the banksters are looting us, and he sits by idly. in the end, it may look much worse than bush did reading his book on 9/11. we have so much fucking national debt that the govt is now buying worthless paper from banks, and selling it to the fed, which is paying for it by printing up new worthless money. it devalues all the money in circulation, and we will be looking at a very serious long lasting depression starting in a year or maybe less. the supply of US dollars has increased almost 40% since obama took office, yet there is no raise in actual assets or production.

He is going to ask Congress for authority to spend another $750 billion rescuing the banks.

Fully half of the $3.55 trillion in spending Obama will preside over this year will not be covered by tax revenue but by red ink. The money will have to be borrowed from abroad or printed by the Fed.

anyways, on the iraq war, obama had this to say to the chicago trib in 2004: "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

During the campaign he said he'd get us out of Iraq within 16 months
see you in april! or maybe it will be the end of 2011, whatever. obama's getting us out (exactly according to the bush plan:)
December 14, 2008 - U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have officially signed the troop withdrawal agreement, alongside a document confirming the dates set for the pull-out, a source close to the Iraqi government said.

"The Iraqi premier and the U.S. president initialed the agreement that paves the way for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011,"

and, on afghanistan:
The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama is not considering a strategy for Afghanistan that would withdraw U.S. troops from the eroding war there.

at this point, the blood is on obama's hands. are our only options two flavors of war? how many more innocent civilians and american soldiers need to die for war hawk obama before we finally give up and go home with our collective tails between our legs? its an unwinnable war, so either we are leaving at some point, or never. obama is NOT CONSIDERING any strategy to get troops out of afghanistan, he is increasing troop levels. how many kids have to die today to prop up our unsustainable economy for a little longer?

This war in Afghanistan has no convincing rationale, and no one can explain it – its goals, or what "victory" means, except as a) a war of retribution against enemies who have long since fled the scene, or b) a means of surrounding the Iranians, and a pretext for extending US influence into Central Asia.

If we are going to invade any country where "plans" and "plots" against the US have taken place, then perhaps we should invade Germany, because Hamburg was where several of the 9/11 hijackers lived for a time.

What's clear is that we aren't going to find and/or defeat them by using conventional military means, i.e. by launching full-scale invasions, or launching attacks over the Afghan-Pakistan border that do more damage to the democratically elected government of Pakistan than to the ostensible targets. And that is really the scariest part of the game Obama is playing in the region: our actions could bring down the government of Pakistan, and give impetus to radical Islamists who make bin Laden seem like a moderate Republican. As new monsters rise out of the morass we have created, we need to be reminded that Pakistan is a nuclear-armed country.


The Center for Constitutional Rights, which has provided lawyers to defend many Guantanamo prisoners, said the Obama administration has "adopted almost the same standard the Bush administration used to detain people without charge."

government lawyers have taken positions in several current detainee court cases that do not propose fundamental change from the Bush administration. They have also invoked the so-called "state secrets" privilege to prevent cases from ever being heard in courts

"It is still unlawful to hold people indefinitely without charge. The men who have been held for more than seven years by our government must be charged or released."

Anthony Romero, head of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he found it "deeply troubling that the Justice Department continues to use an overly broad interpretation of the laws of war that would permit military detention of individuals who were picked up far from an actual battlefield or who didn't engage in hostilities against the United States."

more escalation of war:

The Obama Administration was reported earlier this week to be planning a dramatic escalation of the number and intensity of the US strikes into Pakistan.
Posted: Nov 11, 2009 3:54 pm
Obama's as guilty as LBJ in Viet Nam.
Posted: Nov 11, 2009 6:16 pm
I think it is safe to admit that a President of this country simply cannot "win". They all are doomed to end up with blame for something or another, some worse than others. I can't think of one who has escaped unscathed from the public wrath. It is almost like blaming your parents for shit they did when you were growing up just on a much more massive scale. I don't envy any of them really, though some were patently evil such as Ronald Reagan. That fucker should be in hell if there is one.
Posted: Nov 12, 2009 2:15 am
Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,339,771"

Cost of U.S. War and Occupation of Iraq - "$699,265,602,364"

Hope and Change - Priceless

there is no victory in endless occupation. of course, victory was never the plan. what they are really doing is staging these conflicts to justify the largest war budget of all time. the war on terror is the war that will never, can never, have an end.


US Is Doing No Good in Afghanistan

By Malalai Joya

November 11, 2009 "SJMN" --- As an Afghan woman who was elected to Parliament, I am in the United States to ask President Barack Obama to immediately end the occupation of my country.

Over the past eight years the U.S. has helped turn my country into the drug capital of the world through its support of drug lords. Today, 93 percent of all opium in the world is produced in Afghanistan. Many members of Parliament and high ranking officials openly benefit from the drug trade. President Karzai's own brother is a well known drug trafficker.

Afghanistan has received $36 billion of aid in the past eight years, and the U.S. alone spends $165 million a day on its war. Yet my country remains in the grip of terrorists and criminals. My people have no interest in the current drama of the presidential election since it will change nothing in Afghanistan. Both Karzai and Dr. Abdullah are hated by Afghans for being U.S. puppets.

Now President Obama is considering increasing troops to Afghanistan and simply extending former President Bush's wrong policies. In fact, the worst massacres since 9/11 were during Obama's tenure. My native province of Farah was bombed by the U.S. this past May. A hundred and fifty people were killed, most of them women and children. On Sept. 9, the U.S. bombed Kunduz Province, killing 200 civilians.

My people are fed up. That is why we want an immediate end to the U.S. occupation.



Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez, recently released a report which just confirms that income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression. The report shows that

1--Income inequality is worse than it has been since at least 1917

2--"The top 1 percent incomes captured half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007"

3--"In the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth."

Who didn't know that the "rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer"? Who didn't know that more and more of the nation's wealth is being transferred (via the Federal Reserve) to shifty speculators from ordinary working people?

Everyone knows.
Posted: Nov 12, 2009 11:17 am
Everyone knows.

"Everybody knows" --- great DC5 song! perhaps a cover version is called for?

You go.
Posted: Nov 12, 2009 12:25 pm
hell if there is one.

Posted: Nov 12, 2009 1:48 pm
America's not even 300 years old as a nation...its like an idiot
savant child. Expect real big fucking mistakes from the brat
Posted: Nov 12, 2009 11:25 pm
Obama said during his campaign that he would send troops to Afghanistan.
Posted: Nov 13, 2009 12:17 am
he said it but noone heard. he layed it between the lines.

either way, its as bad an idea now as it was back when he was campaigning.
Posted: Nov 13, 2009 12:34 am | Edited by: bradx
more blood on obama's hands. he has already murdered more innocent afghanis than bush did all last year:

Afghanistan: Over 2,000 civilians killed in first 10 months of 2009

Source: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN)

Date: 12 Nov 2009

"In the first 10 months of 2009, UNAMA recorded 2,021 civilian deaths, compared with 1,838 for the same period in 2008, and 1,275 in 2007," Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner on human rights, said in a statement sent to the UN Security Council on 11 November by her deputy, Kyung-wha Kang.

In this grotesque carnival, the US military's contractors are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes. It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting. And it is a deadly irony, because these funds add up to a huge amount of money for the Taliban. "It's a big part of their income," one of the top Afghan government security officials told The Nation in an interview. In fact, US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon's logistics contracts--hundreds of millions of dollars--consists of payments to insurgents.

The real secret to trucking in Afghanistan is ensuring security on the perilous roads, controlled by warlords, tribal militias, insurgents and Taliban commanders. The American executive I talked to was fairly specific about it: "The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money." That is something everyone seems to agree on.

"We're basically being extorted. Where you don't pay, you're going to get attacked. We just have our field guys go down there, and they pay off who they need to." Sometimes, he says, the extortion fee is high, and sometimes it is low. "Moving ten trucks, it is probably $800 per truck to move through an area. It's based on the number of trucks and what you're carrying. If you have fuel trucks, they are going to charge you more. If you have dry trucks, they're not going to charge you as much. If you are carrying MRAPs or Humvees, they are going to charge you more."

"If you tell me not to pay these insurgents in this area, the chances of my trucks getting attacked increase exponentially."
Posted: Nov 17, 2009 2:27 pm
The Saints are 8-0, who cares about this shit!
Let's not forget about the Bengals. The best Bengals team ever!!!!!! OchoCinco might be a big goofball, but they're winning games.
Posted: Nov 17, 2009 3:30 pm
OchoCinco is awesome.

The league needs more goofballs.
Posted: Nov 17, 2009 4:18 pm
its costing ten billion dollars a month for us to be in iraq. cant help but think that money would be better spent here in america.

maybe we need to think about not electing ex-cokeheads to be president.

and, at the risk of sounding like a crank, W's neocon advisors were on some serious Bill Kristol/ PNAC shit before W even took office. This is the guy who's been shouting about the need to "establish a strong presence" ini the Middle East for some time. It was (IS) an unpoplular notion, and Kristol et al knew the only way to sell it would be a perceived threat or "some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."

What a Fucking Sleazeag. at the very least, Obama doesn't pay much heed to these kinds of jackholes.

heres a quote from the PNAC website:
RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf Pg 3 "Today, America spends less than 3 percent of its gross domestic product on national defense, less than at any time since before the Untied States established itself as the world's leading power and a cut from 4.7 percent of DGP in 1992, the first real post-Cold-War defense budget...pg23 Make efforts to improve the quality of soldier life to sustain the current "middle class" army....pg 51 Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.....pg75 Nevertheless, we believe that, over time, the program we advocate would require budgets roughly equal to those necessary to fully fund the QDR force- a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product.

well, now with obamas war budget, the largest war budget in history, we have finally surpassed PNAC's goal.

"In the most recent quarter, defense spending was equal to 5.6 percent of GDP." - Dean Baker SOURCE
Posted: Nov 18, 2009 6:05 pm
jee zus
Posted: Nov 19, 2009 1:22 am
Obama: The Postmodern Coup by Webster Tarpley


This book is available in its entirety somewhere on the net. Dont remember where I downloaded it from, tho.
Posted: Nov 20, 2009 6:48 pm
Webster Tarpley

Really hottttt Russian babe interview, Web! didja get anywhere with her?
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 8:32 pm
Everything else aside, NO ONE could be a worse president than George W. Bush. It is impossible. A more complete moron cannot be found. Failed at everything he attempted, ever. Only got a degree because of his connections.
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 10:03 pm
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 11:15 pm
Wow, that's the exact same Borders I saw Silvain Silvain in... back in 97.
Posted: Nov 24, 2009 9:08 am
What's worse, a smug Sarah Palin or a smug Nancy Peloisi? They are equally scary to me. Obama's national security stance is EXACTLY the same as Bush. If Bush is an idiot and Obama a messiah, really where is the difference? Last I checked, the Patriot Act is still in effect, we are floundering in Afganistan and the economy sucks. Hope and Change? How about Action and Results?
Posted: Nov 24, 2009 10:57 am
[I think we may have located a more complete moron, as the fans will attest.

I love you middle America. Only you could toss out empty blanket statements about "too much spending" while waxing moronic about the evils of Socialism without ner'word of our recent bailout of Americas financial institutions. When money goes up the tiers it's a necessary saving grace. When it comes down it's "Socialism!".

Bear-Stearns and Wall Street are forecasted to make record profits this year. The countries unemployment rate is expected to surpass 10% by new years. People believe in brand Obama. People believe in Sarah Palin. And Therapist are playing Burgerville tonight.

Everybody do the COLLAPSE!
Posted: Nov 24, 2009 11:01 am
Like I keep saying-what did Obama ever do except bail out the suits and stab the midde class in the back? One and out. Enjoy Mitt Romney and Charlie Frist.
Posted: Nov 24, 2009 1:01 pm
or Bob McDonnell
Posted: Nov 24, 2009 10:26 pm
The whole "Obama as Messiah" thing is bizarre. I keep hearing it from angry Tea Party types, but rarely have I ever met anyone who actually even acted as if he was going to "save" any and all. I think it is unfair to continually sarcastically refer to him as that especially by those who never liked him and certainly never voted for him. Perhaps some/many treated him like some sort of idol, but "messiah"? Nope.

And I think CRAZY egomaniacal Sarah Palin is much, much worse than smug, bitchy Nancy Pelosi, for obvious reasons, mainly her fans. I don't see large numbers of loony, clueless Democrats lining up in droves waiting on Nancy Pelosi for any reason.
Posted: Nov 24, 2009 10:57 pm
The whole "Obama as Messiah" thing is bizarre. I keep hearing it from angry Tea Party types, but rarely have I ever met anyone who actually even acted as if he was going to "save" any and all.

Just look back at the election, He was fawned over like its the second coming. Remember, I voted for him, too. Everyone thought that he would walk in and change everything for the better, I pretty much thought things would go as they have. He was going to end the war, stimulate the economy and fix health care. That's a tall order for anyone, especially a first term senator with little real experience. Now the faithful have turned on him, he can't win for losing.
Posted: Nov 25, 2009 8:38 am
Now the tabloids have started running gay stories about him.
Posted: Nov 25, 2009 8:50 am
Just look back at the election, He was fawned over like its the second coming.

I know where the idea for the name comes from, I just think it is so snotty. It is especially fucked up that people who despise the guy sneeringly use it more than anyone who ever liked him, voted for him or believed in him. It is just more evidence of how angry and juvenile the American populace is in handling their frustration at how messed up things are. Oh yeah, certainly everyone else, including Grandpa Senile down the block, could have just done a much better job than "The Messiah"; please.

The whole thing has the same effect as the comedian who is still telling the same never-really-that-good joke two years after it got the first chuckle. Tired. Useless. Get off the stage and go back to your Rotary meeting.
Posted: Nov 25, 2009 9:09 am
It wouldn't take much to do a better job than Obama. He has no plan. For ending the wars, reviving the economy or tackling health care. He's good at raising money for himself and his rich buddies though.
Posted: Nov 25, 2009 10:17 am
Oh yeah, certainly everyone else, including Grandpa Senile down the block, could have just done a much better job than "The Messiah"; please.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I sense your frustration and anger in his performance. I think you are mad that you placed your trust in him to be different, to be above the fray. Sadly, he's not. I don't know who can fix this, but realistically, it took several presidential terms going back to Clinton to create this mess. It won't be fixed over night, but as a society, we demand instant gratification and get angry when we don't have a quick fix. A quick fix is the last thing we need, we need to slow the momentum of the pendulum swing.

However, it is nice to have a president who can string a couple of sentences together and not look like a complete fool. Too bad what he's saying doesn't help.
Posted: Nov 25, 2009 11:13 am
America is on a long and steep decline...not to be stopped by a politician
or prayers to a fictional god or anything....

Blaming the current situation on a person or political party is like shaking your fists at the sky and screaming....I'm sure it feels good for a few seconds
but that's it.

Its a system that has failed...and cannot be revived.

Enjoy the end of what we know...and prepare for the sun to set on this empire
Posted: Nov 25, 2009 11:25 am
yeah but unfortunately it aint gonna be apocalyptic raids of death and destruction

just the sun setting on the empire much like it did in merry ol england

I want drama! (oh thats why Im here)
Posted: Nov 25, 2009 12:39 pm
Its a system that has failed...and cannot be revived.
Shouldn't that be posted in the tin foil hat thread?? Everything is cyclical, it will come back around. Not tomorrow, but eventually. If we go down, we take the whole world with us. That ain't gonna happen, Alex Jones.
Posted: Nov 25, 2009 12:46 pm
how do we take the whole world with us? seems a little presumptuous as well as arrogant...I think the world will still exist if america is not the hnic...just like it would still exist even if we humans were gone
Posted: Nov 25, 2009 12:59 pm
Economically. The world's economic fortune is tied to us. It's a global economy, but we are driving it. Look at the effects our recent market losses, the rest of the world begged Obama to bail out Wall St to prevent further decline. If we completely collapse and leave China holding the bag, there's goes the worlds manufacturing. Without durable goods being manufactured, the Middle East would then have no one to sell oil to.
Posted: Nov 25, 2009 1:13 pm | Edited by: Mark Beef
not sure if I buy that
even if we cant buy as much from china as we used to they are gaining ground and might start to become their own main consumers...then why would they need us....plus they always have europe to sell to

plus the economy is a shell game just take the bailout for instance...how do financial institutions really profit by being given more of something that they already have...doesn't that just devalue it more?
Posted: Nov 25, 2009 1:43 pm
Everyone thought that he would walk in and change everything for the better

I don't know about that. I certainly hoped he would, but I don't think I expected it, though I'm disappointed he's been as meek as he has. He's a mainstream moderate Democrat just like Clinton was, which is why it's so funny to see him being called "socialist."

I guess we should have elected a really rich liberal from an old family. FDR had so much money and social standing he wasn't afraid to say "fuck you" to the bankers.
Posted: Nov 26, 2009 2:05 am
For those who elected Obama, it's important to remember the downward spiral that was accelerated by Clinton's GOP alliance to pass NAFTA. It should set off alarm bells for us today on Afghanistan.

NAFTA was quickly followed by the debacle of Clinton health care "reform" largely drafted by giant insurance companies, which was followed by a stunning election defeat for Congressional Democrats in November 1994, as progressive and labor activists were lethargic while right-wing activists in overdrive put Gingrich into the Speaker's chair.

A year later, advised by his chief political strategist Dick Morris (yes, the Obama-basher now at Fox), Clinton declared: "The era of big government is over." In the coming years, Clinton proved that the era of big business was far from over -- working with Republican leaders to grant corporate welfare to media conglomerates (1996 Telecom Act) and investment banks (1999 abolition of the Glass-Steagall Act).

Today, it's crucial to ask where Obama is heading. From the stimulus to health care, he's shown a Clinton-like willingness to roll over progressives in Congress on his way to corrupt legislation and frantic efforts to compromise for the votes of corporate Democrats or "moderate" Republicans. Meanwhile, the incredible shrinking "public option" has become a sick joke.

As he glides from retreats on civil liberties to health reform that appeases corporate interests to his Bush-like pledge this week to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, an Obama reliance on Congressional Republicans to fund his troop escalation could be the final straw in disorienting and demobilizing the progressive activists who elected him a year ago.

Throughout the centuries, no foreign power has been able to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, but President Obama thinks he's a tough enough Commander-in-Chief to do it. Too bad he hasn't demonstrated such toughness in the face of obstructionist Republicans and corporate lobbyists. For them, it's been more like "compromiser-in-chief."

When you start in the center (on, say, health care or Afghanistan) and readily move rightward several steps to appease right-wing politicians or lobbyists or generals, by definition you are governing as a conservative.

It's been a gradual descent from the elation and hope for real change many Americans felt on election night, November 2008. For some of us who'd scrutinized the Clinton White House in the early 1990s, the buzz was killed days after Obama's election when he chose his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, a top Clinton strategist and architect of the alliance that pushed NAFTA through Congress.

If Obama stands tough on more troops to Afghanistan (as Clinton fought ferociously for NAFTA), only an unprecedented mobilization of progressives -- including many who worked tirelessly to elect Obama -- will be able to stop him. Trust me: The Republicans who yell and scream about Obama budget deficits when they're obstructing public health care will become deficit doves in spending the estimated $1 million per year per new soldier (not to mention private contractors) headed off to Asia.

The only good news I can see: Maybe it will take a White House/GOP alliance over Afghanistan to wake up the base of liberal groups (like MoveOn) to take a closer and more critical look at President Obama's policies.
Posted: Nov 26, 2009 2:07 am | Edited by: bradx
plus the economy is a shell game just take the bailout for instance...how do financial institutions really profit by being given more of something that they already have...doesn't that just devalue it more?

worse than that, it actually encourages more of the same stupidity that ended with them needing to be bailed out in the first place, because now they know the government will not let them fail. handing out money with no accountability is never a good idea. they need to audit the fed. there needs to be more transparency. market regulation is a good thing.
Posted: Nov 26, 2009 8:17 am
Posted: Nov 27, 2009 1:01 am | Edited by: bradx
Barack Obama's chief economic advisor, Lawrence Summers, is determined to sabotage a second round of stimulus. And, he's getting plenty of help, too. Congressional Democrats are dragging their feet because they're worried about the political backlash and midterm elections, the GOP deficit hawks are looking for a way they can derail the Obama agenda and reestablish their bone fides as fiscal conservatives, and the bailout-traumatized American people are simply opposed to anything that generates more red ink. Even Obama has joined the fray and started badmouthing stimulus stressing the importance of living within our means and trimming the deficits. So it looks like a done-deal; no more stimulus. There's only one problem, without another blast of stimulus the economy is headed for the skids.

Unemployment is almost certain to increase -- probably to the highest levels in a generation. Monetary policy has little scope to stimulate the economy given how low interest rates already are and the problems in the financial system. Global experience with economic downturns caused by financial distress suggests that while they are of uncertain depth, they are almost always of long duration.

"Between 2000 and 2007 – a period of solid aggregate economic growth – the typical working-age household saw their income decline by nearly $2000. The decline in middle-class incomes even as the incomes of the top 1% skyrocketed has a number of causes, but one of them is surely rising asset prices and the fact that financial sector profits exploded to the point to where they represented 40% of all corporate profits in 2006.

Confidence today will be enhanced if we put measures in place that assure that the coming expansion will be more sustainable and fair in the distribution of benefits than its predecessor."

Larry Summers carrying-on about "distribution of benefits"? Huh? So how does the Redistributionist-in-Chief feel about stimulus now? Here's a clip from Thursday's Wall Street Journal:

"The White House is lukewarm about proposals by congressional Democrats to introduce broad legislation to create jobs, instead favoring targeted measures that would be less likely to inflate the deficit, administration officials said.

Mr. Obama is keen to avoid any measures suggestive of a second, big-ticket stimulus. With about half of the February stimulus spending spoken for, the measure has created about 640,000 jobs, fewer than the number of jobs lost in January alone.

Apparently, Summers has had time to rethink his populism and do a 180. Team Obama plans to create jobs by initiating tax credits and lending to small businesses. Sound familiar? In other words, the only way that millions of dejected workers will get any relief is if private industry can be enriched in the process. That's why "there is no discussion of a second stimulus." Because Summers is an industry rep who primary task is to ensure the smooth transfer of public wealth to corporate plutocrats. He even opposed the extension of unemployment benefits believing that greater hardship would push wages down even further. Here's an excerpt from Arianna Huffington at Huffington Post:

"The problem for the White House and for the Democratic Party -- and, most importantly, for the country -- is that the administration's response on jobs is being led by Summers, who actually opposed the extension of unemployment benefits Obama just signed. At this point you have to wonder what Obama's attachment to Summers and Geithner is.....

Back in February, when the $787 billion economic stimulus bill was signed, Summers and company promised that it would keep the unemployment rate from going any higher than 8.5 percent. With another 3.4 million jobs lost since then -- and the official unemployment rate at 10.2 and rising -- the America Rescue and Recovery Act has worked out just dandy. The unions are getting walloped, 8 million people are out of work, the labor market is in the worst shape it's been since the Great Depression, and the blood-flow of stimulus is about to get choked-off sometime in the next two quarters. Hey, it's morning in America!

There's no recovery. Figure it out. Bank profits went up last quarter, but lending went down significantly. Now, that's a neat trick. How did they manage that?

They did it with the money they're getting from the Fed. Bernanke has provided broken banks and other financial institutions with trillions of dollars that are being diverted into high-risk assets, carry trades (with the zero-rate dollar as the funding currency) and speculative derivatives bets. The same bubble that just blew up a year ago has been reflated thanks to Bernanke's largesse and gigantic re-leveraging. Main Street is in a Depression, but Wall Street is doin' just fine.

But there won't be another round of stimulus because Summers and his sniveling companion Geithner won't allow it. They have other plans. Oh yeah, Wall Street and the banking Goliaths will still get as much monetary stimulus as they need (under the phony moniker of "quantitative easing", liquidity swaps, or excess reserves) But as for the working slob---nada, zippo, zilch.

Summers assignment is to bring the broader economy to its knees; to crush big labor by keeping unemployment high, to force state and local and governments to privatize more public assets and services, and to generate as much human misery as possible. In short, Summers is laying the groundwork for structural adjustment within the US, a policy which reflects his ongoing commitment to multinational corporations and neoliberalism. It's the shock doctrine redux. These people are monsters.
Posted: Nov 27, 2009 5:14 pm
Perhaps as soon as Tuesday, the president will explain best he can why tens of thousands of additional American soldiers and Marines are needed to pursue a war soon to pass Vietnam as the longest in our history. Some of our war fighters will be in their fourth or fifth tour of duty in combat zones. The cost of the war there could top a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, yet virtually all the generals and admirals and think tank armchair warriors have concluded that a military solution isn't possible.

President Obama says this is a war we must win. Retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of international relations and history at Boston University, who has written widely on military power and its limitations, says it's a war we cannot win.

It seems insane, doesn't it? We're deep in a debt pit and digging ourselves in ever deeper, soothed by the conceit that America is too big to fail, even though all previous world hegemons have in the end failed. We think of ourselves as an exception to that historical record, but chances are we're not.

President Obama made the war in Afghanistan his war. The anti-war people are silent because he's their man. Leading Democrats in the House are proposing a "surtax" on income to be used for paying the mounting costs of battling insurgents on the other side of the world. And we're reduced to shouting "C'mon man" as we are driven over that cliff.


It is now November 2009. Since Barack Obama was inaugurated in January, unemployment has soared from 7.9 percent to 10.2 percent. A few hundred billion dollars were allocated for "stimulus" purposes, but most of that went to pay unemployment benefits and to keep state and local governments from laying off more employees.

A fraction has been distributed for highway improvements, but largely through the bank bailouts the federal deficit has been running at an annual rate of $1.5 trillion, by far the largest in history, with the national debt now topping $12 trillion. Ironically, those Americans who still have productive jobs continue to grow in efficiency, with productivity up over five percent in the last year.

So much federal money has been spent that the Obama administration has been struggling to make its health care proposals budget-neutral through a raft of new taxes, fees, and penalties, and by announcing in recent days that the government' first priority must now shift to deficit reduction. The word "austerity" has been mentioned for the first time since the Carter administration. Yet Congress voted $655 billion in military expenditures to continue fighting in the Middle East.

And it is madness because the big decisions are not made by the U.S., by Congress, or by the Obama administration. The U.S. has, for half-a-century, been marching to the tune played by the international financial elite, and this fact did not change with the election of 2008. The financiers have put the people of this nation $57 trillion in debt, according to the latest reports, counting debt at the federal, state, business, and household levels. Interest alone on this debt is over $3 trillion of a GDP of $14 trillion. Failure of our political leadership to deal with this tragedy over the past three decades is nothing less than treason.


With Obama pushing a huge troop escalation in Afghanistan, history may well repeat itself with a vengeance. And it's not just the apt comparison to LBJ, who destroyed his presidency on the battlefields of Vietnam with an escalation that delivered power to Nixon and the GOP.

There's another frightening parallel: Obama seems to be following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, who accomplished perhaps his single biggest legislative "triumph" -- NAFTA -- thanks to an alliance with Republicans that overcame strong Democratic and grassroots opposition.

For those who elected Obama, it's important to remember the downward spiral that was accelerated by Clinton's GOP alliance to pass NAFTA. It should set off alarm bells for us today on Afghanistan.

As he glides from retreats on civil liberties to health reform that appeases corporate interests to his Bush-like pledge this week to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, an Obama reliance on Congressional Republicans to fund his troop escalation could be the final straw in disorienting and demobilizing the progressive activists who elected him a year ago.

Throughout the centuries, no foreign power has been able to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, but President Obama thinks he's a tough enough Commander-in-Chief to do it. Too bad he hasn't demonstrated such toughness in the face of obstructionist Republicans and corporate lobbyists. For them, it's been more like "compromiser-in-chief."


The Obama administration decided not to sign an international convention banning land mines. In response to a question about an upcoming review conference on the mind ban treaty, said DeParle spokesman Ian Kelly said Tuesday that the administration recently completed a review and decided not to change the Bush-era policy.
Posted: Nov 28, 2009 5:29 pm
I'm disappointed he's been as meek as he has. He's a mainstream moderate Democrat just like Clinton was, which is why it's so funny to see him being called "socialist."

Yep. I do wish he'd just let loose sometime as the people who call him a Socialist would expect. Get Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright on a podium and start going off. Why not?

We need to start talking about Ocho Cinco again on this thread; much more interesting.
Posted: Nov 28, 2009 8:59 pm
We need to start talking about Ocho Cinco again on this thread; much more interesting

Your political opinons, gay...Saints still undefeated.
p.s. cut and paste is played, see "y'all" Monday.
p.p.s 85 is soooo overrated.
Posted: Nov 28, 2009 9:11 pm
Sorry that was catty.... 85 is soo overrated.
Posted: Nov 29, 2009 2:30 am
U.S. media reports detail alleged abuses that took place at a secretive U.S. jail in Afghanistan, seemingly undermining U.S. President Barack Obama's efforts to improve conditions at such facilities.

A report in The Washington Post published Saturday cites two Afghan teenagers who say they were beaten by interrogators while being held at the Bagram air base jail this year. They also say they suffered sleep depravation and sexual humiliation.


The United States went to war in Afghanistan eight years ago as an indignant nation, justifiably determined to exact revenge for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but as a realistic one as well. The bombing had just begun when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned, "There is no silver bullet."

Americans should keep those words in mind when President Barack Obama goes on TV Tuesday night to make the case for further escalation of a war that Mr. Rumsfeld and his boss, then-President George W. Bush, left unfinished in their zeal to take on another target, Iraq, with considerably less clarity of purpose.

The issue here isn't the war's legitimacy or even its nobility. It is instead, to use a word favored by Mr. Obama, its necessity. The President says he's breaking with the policies of the Bush administration. He's quite pointedly questioning its strategy in fighting that war, and asking for still more resources devoted to it.
Posted: Nov 30, 2009 4:06 pm
They also say they suffered sleep depravation and sexual humiliation.

hey, that happens all the time right here at home!
Posted: Nov 30, 2009 4:23 pm
I wish I could take my vote back.
Posted: Nov 30, 2009 9:27 pm
I wish I could take my vote black.
Posted: Dec 1, 2009 2:25 am
On January 23rd of a rapidly dissipating 2009, Barack Obama perpetrated his first war crime (as president) by authorizing a drone attack in Pakistan. In February of this same year, he ordered an increase of roughly 20,000 more troops to Afghanistan: more war crimes, no corresponding outcry.

In the end, you always get what you vote for.


Barack Obama is now planning to escalate the war against the Afghan people. He and his administration are about to preside over what can only be described as a show trial of 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his codefendants. The president and his attorney general have both predicted a guilty verdict and an execution, all before one word of testimony has been heard.
Posted: Dec 1, 2009 9:06 am
the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

no, it's right where it always was.
Posted: Dec 1, 2009 1:29 pm
guess it's time to light up that big lower case T
Posted: Dec 1, 2009 10:08 pm
30,000 more troops? Why not 300,000 more troops? Fuck it man. It's 4th down and 37. Think big!! "Afghana Star" is the next craze. Winners get hunted down by the Taliban. Makes for great TV. Anybody doin' smack lately? Shit's goooood. No need for needles; it's pure. USA!! USA!! USA!! People don't laugh at me anymore for a wearing my BENGALS shirt. I wonder what Archie Manning is thinking right now?
Posted: Dec 2, 2009 6:59 pm
Man after hearing that speach and the cost of this surge and the steaming bullshit the prez and our military spouted all day yeaterday I will concede that this is fucking retarded. We are going to blow a trillion dollars we most certainly don't have "leaving" a country that never invited us over. Just leave already no one wants us there. Not one of the 9/11 dudes was even from Afghanistan. I call shenanigans!
Posted: Dec 2, 2009 7:38 pm
plus did that donkey learn nothing from bush jr's iraq episode
what a dipshit, Im with riggler now
Posted: Dec 2, 2009 10:59 pm
Nothing like an outsiders opinion... Well, except they committed 10,000 people themselves.
Posted: Dec 3, 2009 8:28 am
Obama Ecstasy pills hit the streets

There is now a line of Ecstasy pills made in the image of the 44th president of the United States, according to Texas police who have snatched a batch off the streets.

Ecstasy is known for a sense of elation, diminished feelings of fear and anxiety, and ability to induce a sense of intimacy with others.

Perhaps a good Election Day strategy to get out the vote?
Posted: Dec 3, 2009 10:43 am
Are you guys the most conservative guys you know? Because you're not very good at it.
Posted: Dec 4, 2009 2:39 am
Tom Hayden writes for The Nation:

"It's time to strip the Obama sticker off my car. Obama's escalation in Afghanistan is the last in a string of disappointments. His flip-flopping acceptance of the military coup in Honduras has squandered the trust of Latin America. His Wall Street bailout leaves the poor, the unemployed, minorities and college students on their own. And now comes the Afghanistan-Pakistan decision to escalate the stalemate, which risks his domestic agenda, his Democratic base, and possibly even his presidency."

Laura Flanders writes on GritTV,

"...for those who'd thought they'd voted for the death of the Bush Doctrine. Sorry. Bush/Cheney live on in the new president's embrace of the idea that the U.S. has a right, not only to respond to attacks, but also to deploy men and women in anticipation of them."

Jim Hightower used his most recent column to warn:

"Obama has been taken over by the military industrial hawks and national security theorists who play war games with other people's lives and money. I had hoped Obama might be a more forceful leader who would reject the same old interventionist mindset of those who profit from permanent war. But his newly announced Afghan policy shows he is not that leader."

Hightower says that just because we've lost Obama on this issue, it's not over; that we as citizens...

"...have both a moral and patriotic duty to reach out to others to inform, organize and mobilize our grassroots objections, taking common sense to high places. Also, look to leaders in Congress who are standing up against Obama's war and finally beginning to reassert the legislative branch's constitutional responsibility to oversee and direct military policy. For example, Rep. Jim McGovern is pushing for a specific, congressionally mandated exit strategy; Rep. Barbara Lee wants to use Congress' control of the public purse strings to stop Obama's escalation; and Rep. David Obey is calling for a war tax on the richest Americans to put any escalation on-budget, rather than on a credit card for China to finance and future generations to pay."

Black Agenda Report editor Glen Ford compares Obama's delivery to how George Bush might have given the speech:

"Barack Obama's oratorical skills have turned on him, revealing, as George Bush's low-grade delivery never could, the perfect incoherence of the current American imperial project in South Asia. Bush's verbal eccentricities served to muddy his entire message, leaving the observer wondering what was more ridiculous, the speechmaker or the speech. There is no such confusion when Obama is on the mic. His flawless delivery of superbly structured sentences provides no distractions, requiring the brain to examine the content – the policy in question – on its actual merits. The conclusion comes quickly: the U.S. imperial enterprise in Afghanistan and Pakistan is doomed, as well as evil.

"The president's speech to West Point cadets was a stream of non sequiturs so devoid of logic as to cast doubt on the sanity of the authors. '[T]hese additional American and international troops,' said the president, 'will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.'
"Obama claims that the faster an additional 30,000 Americans pour into Afghanistan, the quicker will come the time when they will leave. More occupation means less occupation, you see? This breakneck intensification of the U.S. occupation is necessary, Obama explains, because 'We have no interest in occupying your country.'"

Foreign Policy in Focus's Phyllis Bennis demolished Obama's attempt to discourage comparisons to Vietnam:

"Near the end of his speech, Obama tried to speak to his antiwar one-time supporters, speaking to the legacy of Vietnam. It was here that the speech's internal weakness was perhaps most clear. Obama refused to respond to the actual analogy between the quagmire of Vietnam, which led to the collapse of Johnson's Great Society programs, and the threat to Obama's ambitious domestic agenda collapsing under the pressure of funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, he created straw analogies, ignoring the massive challenge of waging an illegitimate, unpopular war at a moment of dire economic crisis."

Glenn Greenwald, writing on Salon, addresses Obama's supporters who are going along with his decision to escalate the troops:

"The most bizarre defense of Obama's escalation is also one of the most common: since he promised during the campaign to escalate in Afghanistan, it's unfair to criticize him for it now -- as though policies which are advocated during a campaign are subsequently immunized from criticism. For those invoking this defense: in 2004, Bush ran for re-election by vowing to prosecute the war in Iraq, keep Guantanamo open, and "reform" privatize Social Security. When he won and then did those things (or tried to), did you refrain from criticizing those policies on the grounds that he promised to do them during the campaign? I highly doubt it."
Posted: Dec 4, 2009 2:50 am
Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan

With New Surge, One Thousand U.S. Soldiers and $300 Million for Every One al Qaeda Fighter

A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations.

Obama's National Security Adviser, Gen. James Jones, put the number at "fewer than a hundred" in an October interview with CNN.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., referred to the number at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee in October, saying "intelligence says about a hundred al Qaeda in Afghanistan."

At a Senate hearing, the former CIA Pakistan station chief, Bob Grenier, testified al Qaeda had already been defeated in Afghanistan.

"So in terms of 'in Afghanistan,'" asked Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "they have been disrupted and dismantled and defeated. They're not in Afghanistan, correct?"

"That's true," replied Grenier.
Posted: Dec 6, 2009 3:55 am
I picked up the phone, and discovered it was Jayne in the President's Office of Public Engagement. "How did you feel about the President's speech?" she asked thoughtfully.

I told her I was feeling horrible, that I disagreed with almost everything he said. I said he didn't have the courage to be in his own body as he delivered the words that would cause the deaths of so many and that if he was willing to couch his position in so many untruths then I couldn't believe anything he said--even about why we were there. Really, we are going to send 100,000 troops, over 100,000 contractors and 100 billion dollars to deal with 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? It reminds me of an Afghan woman's tirade to me when I was there, "You want me to believe that the most powerful nation in the world is being held hostage by those skinny, lice covered, illiterate, dirty men in those craggy hills of this broken country?"

You have failed the critical test of both a Commander-in-Chief, and of a man: In escalating our eight-year-long military effort to subdue or occupy Afghanistan you have demonstrated neither judgment and integrity nor courage. You have sentenced to death countless Afghans, Americans and others, on our side all duped over and over again by the cynical, high-powered sales pitch attached to our disastrous misadventures in the Middle East, a war which may well be fatal to the republic itself, all to save your political image. -- Arthur Wagner
Posted: Dec 7, 2009 6:30 am
By mid-2010, Obama will have more than doubled the number of American troops in Afghanistan since he became president; he will have empowered his general, Stanley McChrystal, to fight the war pretty much as he thinks necessary to in order to win; and he will have retroactively, as it were, acknowledged that he and his party were wrong about the Iraq surge in 2007 -- after all, the rationale for this surge is identical to Bush's, and the hope is for a similar success. He will also have embraced the use of military force as a key instrument of national power.

At the press briefing this afternoon by two senior administration officials, a questioner pointed out that the government of Iran "regards the U.S. government's policy of surging forces as following Bush policy" and that the Iranian regime sees "no change in U.S. policy."
Posted: Dec 10, 2009 3:26 am
Barack Obama, for all his pledges of transparency, has upheld government secrecy to shield the previous administration and the former vice president in particular. He blocked the release of the FBI's interview of Cheney in the Valerie Plame case, though a federal judge recently rejected arguments for keeping the file sealed. The Obama administration has promoted, through its actions and its rhetoric, the fiction that post-9/11 abuses were committed by "bad apple" agents rather than condoned by high-ranking officials. The Obama and Bush administrations have both sought to block the release of detainee abuse information. Obama has also declined to release new pictures of prisoner mistreatment, breaking his earlier pledge. His Justice Department's investigation of CIA excesses will be circumscribed to lower-ranking, "rogue" agents.

In a May speech, Obama professed, "I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values." He then pledged that he would continue imprisoning detainees who "cannot be prosecuted" for lack of evidence. And the administration is mounting a legal challenge to transfer, in effect, Guantanamo to Bagram, making the latter prison America's primary human warehouse for detainees that the government holds without charges. In 30 of the 38 Guantanamo-related habeas corpus cases lower courts have heard since the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision in 2008, judges have found that the government lacked credible evidence—the lowest evidentiary burden—to continue incarceration of detainees.

Do indefinite imprisonments, immunity for favored agents, and rule by executive diktat sound like best democratic practice?
Posted: Dec 10, 2009 9:05 am
and yet with all that, he's STILL not anywhere near the universe of shitty that we had for the last 8 years. it's really kind of amazing!
Posted: Dec 10, 2009 12:16 pm
It's not a sprint, it's a marathon.

You can't undo 8 years of incompetent lying shit in 10 months.
Posted: Dec 10, 2009 1:16 pm
I'm only 7 1/2 years away from new Medicare! Woo hoo!
Posted: Dec 10, 2009 3:25 pm
and yet with all that, he's STILL not anywhere near the universe of shitty that we had for the last 8 years. it's really kind of amazing!

actually he has surpassed it.

http://www.alternet.org/world/144449/obama_far_outdoes_bush_in_escalat ing_war_--_the_numbers_will_surprise_you
Posted: Dec 10, 2009 3:49 pm
war in afghanistan is just one piece of the big shitty pie that W left.
Posted: Dec 10, 2009 4:22 pm
Anybody with any sense know's there's only one way to end an unwinnable war-cut and run. Or would you rather wait until we're evacuating Americans by chopper off the embassy roofs in Iraq and Afghanistan? (If we have any money left to fly the choppers there.)
Posted: Dec 10, 2009 4:22 pm
and now obama is using the same surge strategy bush had success with in iraq. if mccain was in office he would be doing the exact same thing. you dont end wars by doubling the number of troops. its an unwinnable war. oh well, when we are still in both iraq and afghanistan in 2012, with more troops there and more expense then ever before, i will bring this thread back up.
Posted: Dec 22, 2009 2:38 pm
Posted: Dec 22, 2009 3:07 pm
It's a disgrace what's going on with the "Healthcare reform" bill. The deals the Democrats are making harken back to old-school American corruption. In the end we'll all probably be screwed worse than we already are. Nice leadership as usual at the top. Is it too early to be calling for impeachment?
Posted: Dec 22, 2009 4:21 pm
"The primary method used to process oil sands yields an oily wastewater. For each barrel of oil recovered, 2.5 barrels of liquid waste are pumped into huge ponds. In the Syncrude pond, 14 miles in circumference, 20 feet of murky water floats on a 130-foot-thick slurry of sand, silt, clay, and unrecovered oil. Residents of northern Alberta have engaged in activist campaigns to close down the oil sands plants because of devastating environmental problems, including displacement of native people, destruction of boreal forests, livestock deaths, and an increase in miscarriages.

"Replacing conventional crude with oil sands to meet the world's energy appetite would require about 700 additional plants the size of the existing Syncrude plant. Together, they would generate a waste pond the size of Lake Ontario. While oil sands represent a potential energy asset for Canada, they cannot make up for the inevitable decline in the global production of conventional oil."
Posted: Dec 27, 2009 11:25 am
I hope Obama is having a nice time in Hawaii on our tax dollars this holiday season while millions of Americans are jobless with no health insurance and war rages around the world in our name.
Posted: Dec 28, 2009 1:19 pm
I'm sad so say that ANY Democrat nomination would probably have the same result.

Someone needs to start a nation wide Jody-Foster fan club instead of voting.

war in afghanistan is just one piece of the big shitty pie that W left.

I tend to blame Osama Bin Laden for the war in Afghanistan, stupid liberal!

You're all stupid, racist, faggot-assed hippies for voting that NIGGER into office.
Posted: Dec 28, 2009 2:48 pm
stupid, racist, faggot-assed hippies

nice try, hamburger breath.
Posted: Dec 28, 2009 2:50 pm
It was almost worth a shot.
Posted: Dec 28, 2009 2:51 pm
i thought bombing all those dudes over there was supposed to keep them from trying to sneak bombs onto planes over here?!?!? WHAT the FUCK happened?!? IT SEEMED FOOLPROOF!!!!!!!
Posted: Dec 28, 2009 3:00 pm
It's all a bunch of bullshit.

That war could be over tomorrow if that's what those morons really wanted.
Posted: Dec 28, 2009 3:03 pm | Edited by: littlemisslinda
Religious people fuck-up society.
Especially Muslims.
Posted: Dec 29, 2009 9:41 am
Nice leadership up top on the domestic terrorism issue too. Inspirational speech from vacation in Hawaii about it being up to ordinary citizens to thwart terrorist attacks. Is this guy for real?
Posted: Dec 29, 2009 1:16 pm
wow, I'm really worried about nut-ass rich Nigerians who set themselves on fire on the flight from Amsterdam.
Posted: Jan 1, 2010 2:36 am
I can't wait 'til election night '12. I'm gonna NOT vote so hard. Unless the Repubs produce some unbelievably unconscionable piece of shit where I gotta vote the lesser of two evils I ain't gonna bother with the poseur Dems ever again. They ain't my mama's Dems. Had an eye on the exits ever since Clinton's NAFTA.
Posted: Jan 1, 2010 2:54 am
nut-ass rich Nigerians

... and it's always rich kids who think they're so right! Seriously. Half the fucking "commies" in America are born into wealth. Just soulless pieces of shit trying to impose their beliefs onto others. FUCK RICH KIDS!
Posted: Jan 1, 2010 6:06 am
Posted: Jan 31, 2010 2:37 pm
Posted: Jan 31, 2010 3:11 pm
the new world order now in blackface !!!!
Posted: Jan 31, 2010 8:38 pm
Don't worry guys. After the latest Supreme Court ruling, the corporations will buy us a much better president in 2012.
Posted: Jan 31, 2010 9:45 pm
Thanks, Obama. For being the funky president.
Posted: Feb 1, 2010 12:22 pm
Thanks, Obama, for somehow alienating Ned enough so that he takes a break from the Goner Board and pays attention to his family and day job.
Posted: Feb 4, 2010 2:23 pm
Thanks Obama for the $800 'making work pay credit' you added to my tax return...although I should probably thank the previous administration since you inherited everything from them anyway...

ps- I'm still waiting for you to tell me when it's safe to drive my Toyota again...
Posted: Aug 8, 2011 1:04 pm
Thanks Obama,
I had so many people to warn me to sell my gold in the 1200s.
I'm still holding....
Posted: Aug 9, 2011 8:20 pm
bummer, i thought ned had come out of hiding to say "i toldja so"
Posted: Aug 10, 2011 10:18 pm
Thanks fuckin' Barack fuckin' Hussein O-fuckin-bama. If you weren't such a fuckin' sissy last winter, you would'nt have caved in to those scumfuc republicans and let Bush's tax breaks for the fuckin' rich sunset back in January. But ahhh... you ahhh kicked the fuckin' can down the road as they like to say, for your rich buddies SERIOUSLY fucking up America's credit rating.FINALLY! Good thing I shorted the cocksuckin' markets on Friday. I've made tens of thousands this week. Thanks. I could tell you're a dipshit just by looking at ya.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to eat some fuckin' steak, and you guys can go eat some peanut butter sandwiches or something.
Posted: Aug 10, 2011 10:22 pm
wow i just realized this is the thread that caused me to write unsustainable lifestyle. we recently recorded with mike zink for an upcoming 7" here is an outtake:

http://blip.tv/file/get/Bradx-THEONIONSUnsustainableLifestyleOUTTAKE16 88.mp3
Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message

Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

  Goner Message Board Powered by PHP Forum Software miniBB ®