Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama's motivation is to distract from whats going on at home for as long as he can so what does he do he invades a country the size of Alaska for what I ask you?
Sort of reminds me of when Clinton was trying to distract from Monica....
Actually Clinton decided not to enact a stimulus package and the economy recovered like it was on steroids. As long as the economy was strong people overlooked his character flaws. Obama, by contrast, doesn't have enough character problems. There is no evidence he cheated on his wife or smoked marijuana. But his policies and results are easy targets.
I have a slightly different memory of the economic recovery in the 90's. Not on steroids, not for most I know, that's for sure.
I'm inclined to see your point with the rest of your post though I may have a different opinion. I think he has plenty of other character flaws, the biggest of which is doing nothing.
I do think that he is trying to look like he's doing something other than nothing in regards to anything....
Well they say WW2 took our country out of the depression and made the economy boom. The elite may consider war a last ditch effort to solve serious worldwide financial problems. Not to say it will work out the way they want, but it could be their motivation.
Good lord. First of all, we are currently engaged in 1 war - Afghanistan (which had 93% support when it started). Iraq is no longer a combat mission with the war ended and Libya is a limited military operation for which we are providing support for a UN coalition.
Second of all, the economy is in full recovery. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't cost that much to fire some missiles and the Republicans won't touch the bloated military budget anyway, so it's all quite unrelated to the recovery of the economy.
Good lord. First of all, we are currently engaged in 1 war - Afghanistan (which had 93% support when it started). Iraq is no longer a combat mission with the war ended and Libya is a limited military operation for which we are providing support for a UN coalition.
Second of all, the economy is in full recovery. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't cost that much to fire some missiles and the Republicans won't touch the bloated military budget anyway, so it's all quite unrelated to the recovery of the economy.
And in Mississippi it was really bad in the 90s, too. That doesn't mean, from a national perspective, that the economy isn't expanding on a firm recovery.
This, though, has nothing to do with the economy. Given the Pentagon budget, this military action has no impact on the economy. It's just a good story Obama's opposition (who's never seen a military operation they didn't like before this) can tell people who are not educated about federal budgets because, on the surface, it sounds logical to the general public.
If Republicans really were concerned about spending and wars, they would cut the defense budget by about 2/3rds.
That would slow the 'go to war again' things down, cut spending a whole lot, and balance the budget real quick, without stripping the country of needed and necessary social programs.
Alas, their military Industrial complex contractor kickback friends would not be pleased.
What a bunch of phonies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.