Obama's Speech

[dilloduck]

Bush abandoned the fight against terror to go on the HUNT; that is why we have al-Qaeda, and bin Laden lived on. And ground troops are a tough sell. I am not implying we may not need them, but it the responsibility of those in the region to fight.

So sad that you have to trot out the Blame Bush theme. Nothing better to say?

Written again, and again. Congress needs to get on this. The prior poster brought up Bush of course.

I would love to see a formal declaration of war declared so the other nations would have a "heads up" and forewarning of the consequences of aiding or harboring terrorists. This would also give a more stable footing upon the prosecution for treason of any American citizen joining or helping the terrorists in any way.

Obama has the American people behind him right now. A very high number of Americans today support the deployment of ground troops. It would be a fantastic time for Obama to seize on the momentum the opportunity to rewrite his legacy of a failed Presidency and regain his losses in the polls. I cannot understand why he hasn't done it.

A formal declaration of war on what ? Terrorism ?

Absolutely. They have declared war on us. If we can build bridges to nowhere we can declare war on whomever and whatever we please.

and that would help how ?

Read my quote in the upper part of your own post.

So you think it will intimidate countries who harbor terrorists and make it easier to arrest American traitors ? We already attack terrorists in foreign countries and kill Americans who are on the wrong side.

 

[EconChick]

The OP waited five seconds after the speech was over to start typing, no time for thought obviously. The US will hit Syria, and of course the President didn't pose, declare "I'M taking them OUT" or dresss up like Napolean. No battle plans released unlike 2003, thus we retain the element of surprise. Great work by the JCS, and DoD.

LOL, sign this chick up for Secretary of Defense. roll eyes.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the first thing about battle plans, sweetie.

Professor Carnesale disagreed; as for your knowledge of economics......Prof. Samuelson would choke.

You don't realize you're being brainwashed with Keynesian philosophy in academia, sweetie? Don't feel bad, I got it too. I just happened to overcome it though .....unlike most economists.

 

[Peach]

The OP waited five seconds after the speech was over to start typing, no time for thought obviously. The US will hit Syria, and of course the President didn't pose, declare "I'M taking them OUT" or dresss up like Napolean. No battle plans released unlike 2003, thus we retain the element of surprise. Great work by the JCS, and DoD.

LOL, sign this chick up for Secretary of Defense. roll eyes.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the first thing about battle plans, sweetie.

Professor Carnesale disagreed; as for your knowledge of economics......Prof. Samuelson would choke.

You don't realize you're being brainwashed with Keynesian philosophy in academia, sweetie? Don't feel bad, I got it too. I just happened to overcome it though .....unlike most economists.

Professor Samuelson focused on Mill, Ricardo, and Myrdal actually. He is missed. An interesting and open minded man.

 

[EconChick]

The OP waited five seconds after the speech was over to start typing, no time for thought obviously. The US will hit Syria, and of course the President didn't pose, declare "I'M taking them OUT" or dresss up like Napolean. No battle plans released unlike 2003, thus we retain the element of surprise. Great work by the JCS, and DoD.

LOL, sign this chick up for Secretary of Defense. roll eyes.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the first thing about battle plans, sweetie.

Professor Carnesale disagreed; as for your knowledge of economics......Prof. Samuelson would choke.

You don't realize you're being brainwashed with Keynesian philosophy in academia, sweetie? Don't feel bad, I got it too. I just happened to overcome it though .....unlike most economists.

Professor Samuelson focused on Mill, Ricardo, and Myrdal actually. He is missed. An interesting and open minded man.

Yet you spend a lot of time spouting big government Keynesian solutions on this website. Just like O's intro to his ISIS speech.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I see some want to allow ISL to survive, those are a minority.

The right has wanted that all along.

President Obama was spot on throughout his speech. Very presidential and absolutely correct in what he said.

That' the real reason the RWs are pissed.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are doing what they always do - not a damn thing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Bush abandoned the fight against terror to go on the HUNT; that is why we have al-Qaeda, and bin Laden lived on. And ground troops are a tough sell. I am not implying we may not need them, but it the responsibility of those in the region to fight.

So sad that you have to trot out the Blame Bush theme. Nothing better to say?

Written again, and again. Congress needs to get on this. The prior poster brought up Bush of course.

I would love to see a formal declaration of war declared so the other nations would have a "heads up" and forewarning of the consequences of aiding or harboring terrorists. This would also give a more stable footing upon the prosecution for treason of any American citizen joining or helping the terrorists in any way.

Obama has the American people behind him right now. A very high number of Americans today support the deployment of ground troops. It would be a fantastic time for Obama to seize on the momentum the opportunity to rewrite his legacy of a failed Presidency and regain his losses in the polls. I cannot understand why he hasn't done it.

A formal declaration of war on what ? Terrorism ?

The Islamic Caliphate.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The OP waited five seconds after the speech was over to start typing, no time for thought obviously. The US will hit Syria, and of course the President didn't pose, declare "I'M taking them OUT" or dresss up like Napolean. No battle plans released unlike 2003, thus we retain the element of surprise. Great work by the JCS, and DoD.

LOL, sign this chick up for Secretary of Defense. roll eyes.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the first thing about battle plans, sweetie.

Professor Carnesale disagreed; as for your knowledge of economics......Prof. Samuelson would choke.

You are well read, but sometimes you seem to trust bookishness over real experience and common sense.

I get the impression at times if you read a well hailed Phud dissertation that Obama was the Messiah, you would be drinking the Kool Aid post haste.

No offense, just being frank.

 

[Peach]

The OP waited five seconds after the speech was over to start typing, no time for thought obviously. The US will hit Syria, and of course the President didn't pose, declare "I'M taking them OUT" or dresss up like Napolean. No battle plans released unlike 2003, thus we retain the element of surprise. Great work by the JCS, and DoD.

LOL, sign this chick up for Secretary of Defense. roll eyes.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the first thing about battle plans, sweetie.

Professor Carnesale disagreed; as for your knowledge of economics......Prof. Samuelson would choke.

You don't realize you're being brainwashed with Keynesian philosophy in academia, sweetie? Don't feel bad, I got it too. I just happened to overcome it though .....unlike most economists.

Professor Samuelson focused on Mill, Ricardo, and Myrdal actually. He is missed. An interesting and open minded man.

Yet you spend a lot of time spouting big government Keynesian solutions on this website. Just like O's intro to his ISIS speech.

Keynes is complex, the Daily Caller is not a source for actual economic theory; many schools of economics claim at least part of the theories set forth by Keynes. Aggregate supply and aggregate demand are the basis of economics, why not see if your local adult education center offers a simple class on the subject. Comparative advantage (Ricardo) is beyond the basics, you might get to that level....someday.

 

[Peach]

I see some want to allow ISL to survive, those are a minority.

The right has wanted that all along.

President Obama was spot on throughout his speech. Very presidential and absolutely correct in what he said.

That' the real reason the RWs are pissed.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are doing what they always do - not a damn thing.

No, Boehner got up to the plate today. States he is behind the President, this isn't a campaign commercial; ISL is real.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The OP waited five seconds after the speech was over to start typing, no time for thought obviously. The US will hit Syria, and of course the President didn't pose, declare "I'M taking them OUT" or dresss up like Napolean. No battle plans released unlike 2003, thus we retain the element of surprise. Great work by the JCS, and DoD.

LOL, sign this chick up for Secretary of Defense. roll eyes.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the first thing about battle plans, sweetie.

Professor Carnesale disagreed; as for your knowledge of economics......Prof. Samuelson would choke.

You don't realize you're being brainwashed with Keynesian philosophy in academia, sweetie? Don't feel bad, I got it too. I just happened to overcome it though .....unlike most economists.

Professor Samuelson focused on Mill, Ricardo, and Myrdal actually. He is missed. An interesting and open minded man.

And yet Ricardo would have ENVER agreed with the concept of exporting core industry and killing employment of any home nation. Only excess production and products resulting from comparative advantage did he emphasize free trade of.

As to Mr Samuelson...I give this quote of his, "Contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, the Soviet economy is proof that... a socialist command economy can function and even thrive."

 

[dilloduck]

Bush abandoned the fight against terror to go on the HUNT; that is why we have al-Qaeda, and bin Laden lived on. And ground troops are a tough sell. I am not implying we may not need them, but it the responsibility of those in the region to fight.

So sad that you have to trot out the Blame Bush theme. Nothing better to say?

Written again, and again. Congress needs to get on this. The prior poster brought up Bush of course.

I would love to see a formal declaration of war declared so the other nations would have a "heads up" and forewarning of the consequences of aiding or harboring terrorists. This would also give a more stable footing upon the prosecution for treason of any American citizen joining or helping the terrorists in any way.

Obama has the American people behind him right now. A very high number of Americans today support the deployment of ground troops. It would be a fantastic time for Obama to seize on the momentum the opportunity to rewrite his legacy of a failed Presidency and regain his losses in the polls. I cannot understand why he hasn't done it.

A formal declaration of war on what ? Terrorism ?

The Islamic Caliphate.

There is no caliphate---it's an army of mercenaries running amok.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I see some want to allow ISL to survive, those are a minority.

The right has wanted that all along.

President Obama was spot on throughout his speech. Very presidential and absolutely correct in what he said.

That' the real reason the RWs are pissed.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are doing what they always do - not a damn thing.

No, Boehner got up to the plate today. States he is behind the President, this isn't a campaign commercial; ISL is real.

I.S. (why are we still unable to settle on the name of our new enemy?) is very real, but they were also real PRIOR to cutting off some journo's heads.

Why do we confuse media events with reality?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Bush abandoned the fight against terror to go on the HUNT; that is why we have al-Qaeda, and bin Laden lived on. And ground troops are a tough sell. I am not implying we may not need them, but it the responsibility of those in the region to fight.

So sad that you have to trot out the Blame Bush theme. Nothing better to say?

Written again, and again. Congress needs to get on this. The prior poster brought up Bush of course.

I would love to see a formal declaration of war declared so the other nations would have a "heads up" and forewarning of the consequences of aiding or harboring terrorists. This would also give a more stable footing upon the prosecution for treason of any American citizen joining or helping the terrorists in any way.

Obama has the American people behind him right now. A very high number of Americans today support the deployment of ground troops. It would be a fantastic time for Obama to seize on the momentum the opportunity to rewrite his legacy of a failed Presidency and regain his losses in the polls. I cannot understand why he hasn't done it.

A formal declaration of war on what ? Terrorism ?

The Islamic Caliphate.

There is no caliphate---it's an army of mercenaries running amok.

Well that is your opinion; they say that they are a Caliphate.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The OP waited five seconds after the speech was over to start typing, no time for thought obviously. The US will hit Syria, and of course the President didn't pose, declare "I'M taking them OUT" or dresss up like Napolean. No battle plans released unlike 2003, thus we retain the element of surprise. Great work by the JCS, and DoD.

LOL, sign this chick up for Secretary of Defense. roll eyes.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the first thing about battle plans, sweetie.

Professor Carnesale disagreed; as for your knowledge of economics......Prof. Samuelson would choke.

You don't realize you're being brainwashed with Keynesian philosophy in academia, sweetie? Don't feel bad, I got it too. I just happened to overcome it though .....unlike most economists.

Professor Samuelson focused on Mill, Ricardo, and Myrdal actually. He is missed. An interesting and open minded man.

Who thought that the Marxist Leninist command economy had proven itself a successful rival to capitalism.

 

[Peach]

The OP waited five seconds after the speech was over to start typing, no time for thought obviously. The US will hit Syria, and of course the President didn't pose, declare "I'M taking them OUT" or dresss up like Napolean. No battle plans released unlike 2003, thus we retain the element of surprise. Great work by the JCS, and DoD.

LOL, sign this chick up for Secretary of Defense. roll eyes.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the first thing about battle plans, sweetie.

Professor Carnesale disagreed; as for your knowledge of economics......Prof. Samuelson would choke.

You don't realize you're being brainwashed with Keynesian philosophy in academia, sweetie? Don't feel bad, I got it too. I just happened to overcome it though .....unlike most economists.

Professor Samuelson focused on Mill, Ricardo, and Myrdal actually. He is missed. An interesting and open minded man.

And yet Ricardo would have ENVER agreed with the concept of exporting core industry and killing employment of any home nation. Only excess production and products resulting from comparative advantage did he emphasize free trade of.

As to Mr Samuelson...I give this quote of his, "Contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, the Soviet economy is proof that... a socialist command economy can function and even thrive."

The only sentence from the first US Nobel Prize winner in economics most know. Sad; Samuelson on economics:

Economics is the study of how men and society choose, with or without the use of money, to employ scarce productive resource which could have alternative uses, to produce various commodities over time and distribute them for consumption, now and in the future among various people and groups of society.

Samuelson was correct, the USSR did function, and thrive on a constant "war economy".......until detente.........afterward...the threads that held the economy together unraveled as the price of the facade was repression in all other aspects of life. Nazi Germany also thrived, for a time.

Samuelson's statement was an instruction; students of economics must find flaws in FUNCTIONING economies in order to correct for variables. See Consumer Theory.

 

[Katzndogz]

I am so glad that both obama and Kerry clarified yesterday's speech by assuring the caliphate that we are not at war with them and they need not worry about facing American fighters.

Don't you feel safer already?

The border will remain unguarded. All attempts by Americans to stop entry will be dealt with by the regime. There will be no interference with recruiting mosques.

That should really make you feel safe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The OP waited five seconds after the speech was over to start typing, no time for thought obviously. The US will hit Syria, and of course the President didn't pose, declare "I'M taking them OUT" or dresss up like Napolean. No battle plans released unlike 2003, thus we retain the element of surprise. Great work by the JCS, and DoD.

LOL, sign this chick up for Secretary of Defense. roll eyes.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the first thing about battle plans, sweetie.

Professor Carnesale disagreed; as for your knowledge of economics......Prof. Samuelson would choke.

You don't realize you're being brainwashed with Keynesian philosophy in academia, sweetie? Don't feel bad, I got it too. I just happened to overcome it though .....unlike most economists.

Professor Samuelson focused on Mill, Ricardo, and Myrdal actually. He is missed. An interesting and open minded man.

And yet Ricardo would have ENVER agreed with the concept of exporting core industry and killing employment of any home nation. Only excess production and products resulting from comparative advantage did he emphasize free trade of.

As to Mr Samuelson...I give this quote of his, "Contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, the Soviet economy is proof that... a socialist command economy can function and even thrive."

The only sentence from the first US Nobel Prize winner in economics most know. Sad; Samuelson on economics:

Economics is the study of how men and society choose, with or without the use of money, to employ scarce productive resource which could have alternative uses, to produce various commodities over time and distribute them for consumption, now and in the future among various people and groups of society.

Samuelson was correct, the USSR did function, and thrive on a constant "war economy".......until detente.........afterward...the threads that held the economy together unraveled as the price of the facade was repression in all other aspects of life. Nazi Germany also thrived, for a time.

Samuelson's statement was an instruction; students of economics must find flaws in FUNCTIONING economies in order to correct for variables. See Consumer Theory.

Yeah, I read "Economics' back in junior high school along with Herman Khan's "On Thermonuclear War." Lol, but I don't recall all that much of them but a few things, like how the urban economies are based on rural industries (Khan) and Samuelson was pimping Keynes. Hard to understand how anyone thinks we have had a Keynesian economy since Eisenhower since we don't bother to pay down our national debt during years of surplus.

As to his consumer oriented economics and using basically thermodynamic models to essplain economics, yeah, it works some. It seems common though for experts in subjective nontestable fields of expertise to borrow models from physics. But I guess there can be validity as mathematics shows us similarities to unrelated objects and systems all the time. But there is a far more sinister side to consumerism than what I think Mr Samuelson realized and it has to do with mass psychological control and manipulation of democratic populations.

But this is flawed and doomed to fail. The world cannot support open ended consumerism and eventually we all get poor or we all get wealthy through technological advance.

I like this article on the future of humanity...if the ACA administrators let us achieve it that is, lolol.
Different species of human will have evolved by 2050 scientist claims Mail Online

 

[JimBowie1958]

I am so glad that both obama and Kerry clarified yesterday's speech by assuring the caliphate that we are not at war with them and they need not worry about facing American fighters.

Don't you feel safer already?

The border will remain unguarded. All attempts by Americans to stop entry will be dealt with by the regime. There will be no interference with recruiting mosques.

That should really make you feel safe.

I feel safer already knowing that my country is protected by the latest technology in teleprompters.

 

[Peach]

The OP waited five seconds after the speech was over to start typing, no time for thought obviously. The US will hit Syria, and of course the President didn't pose, declare "I'M taking them OUT" or dresss up like Napolean. No battle plans released unlike 2003, thus we retain the element of surprise. Great work by the JCS, and DoD.

LOL, sign this chick up for Secretary of Defense. roll eyes.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the first thing about battle plans, sweetie.

Professor Carnesale disagreed; as for your knowledge of economics......Prof. Samuelson would choke.

You are well read, but sometimes you seem to trust bookishness over real experience and common sense.

I get the impression at times if you read a well hailed Phud dissertation that Obama was the Messiah, you would be drinking the Kool Aid post haste.

No offense, just being frank.

Actually, the opposite is true. The Socratic method method is invaluable; I read Marx at young age, my conclusion was.............."most people don't want to be the same". Likewise my feeling about 1984, Erehwon, Brave New World. I have never favored the grinners and jokers for office, thus my continued admiration for Truman, Eisenhower, and Ford. Swimming with the school has never been a problem for me.

All theories must be analyzed, and rigorous attempts made to find flaws.

 

[Peach]

The OP waited five seconds after the speech was over to start typing, no time for thought obviously. The US will hit Syria, and of course the President didn't pose, declare "I'M taking them OUT" or dresss up like Napolean. No battle plans released unlike 2003, thus we retain the element of surprise. Great work by the JCS, and DoD.

LOL, sign this chick up for Secretary of Defense. roll eyes.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the first thing about battle plans, sweetie.

Professor Carnesale disagreed; as for your knowledge of economics......Prof. Samuelson would choke.

You don't realize you're being brainwashed with Keynesian philosophy in academia, sweetie? Don't feel bad, I got it too. I just happened to overcome it though .....unlike most economists.

Professor Samuelson focused on Mill, Ricardo, and Myrdal actually. He is missed. An interesting and open minded man.

And yet Ricardo would have ENVER agreed with the concept of exporting core industry and killing employment of any home nation. Only excess production and products resulting from comparative advantage did he emphasize free trade of.

As to Mr Samuelson...I give this quote of his, "Contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, the Soviet economy is proof that... a socialist command economy can function and even thrive."

The only sentence from the first US Nobel Prize winner in economics most know. Sad; Samuelson on economics:

Economics is the study of how men and society choose, with or without the use of money, to employ scarce productive resource which could have alternative uses, to produce various commodities over time and distribute them for consumption, now and in the future among various people and groups of society.

Samuelson was correct, the USSR did function, and thrive on a constant "war economy".......until detente.........afterward...the threads that held the economy together unraveled as the price of the facade was repression in all other aspects of life. Nazi Germany also thrived, for a time.

Samuelson's statement was an instruction; students of economics must find flaws in FUNCTIONING economies in order to correct for variables. See Consumer Theory.

Yeah, I read "Economics' back in junior high school along with Herman Khan's "On Thermonuclear War." Lol, but I don't recall all that much of them but a few things, like how the urban economies are based on rural industries (Khan) and Samuelson was pimping Keynes. Hard to understand how anyone thinks we have had a Keynesian economy since Eisenhower since we don't bother to pay down our national debt during years of surplus.

As to his consumer oriented economics and using basically thermodynamic models to essplain economics, yeah, it works some. It seems common though for experts in subjective nontestable fields of expertise to borrow models from physics. But I guess there can be validity as mathematics shows us similarities to unrelated objects and systems all the time. But there is a far more sinister side to consumerism than what I think Mr Samuelson realized and it has to do with mass psychological control and manipulation of democratic populations.

But this is flawed and doomed to fail. The world cannot support open ended consumerism and eventually we all get poor or we all get wealthy through technological advance.

I like this article on the future of humanity...if the ACA administrators let us achieve it that is, lolol.
Different species of human will have evolved by 2050 scientist claims Mail Online

Samuelson was actually neoclassical. His view of welfare for example was not positive, comparative advantage negates any benefit.