Obama visits Normandy & Buchenwald - rebukes Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial

[sproing99]

For socialist european governments......

Which ones would these be ?

France - No
Germany - No
Italy - No
UK - Hardly

 

[georges]

Which ones would these be ?

France - No
Germany - No
Italy - No
UK - Hardly

UK- no with dan brown
germany- yes with merkel
italy- no with berlusconi
spain-yes with zapatero
netherlands-perhaps yes

 

[sproing99]

Dan Brown ?

 

[Philbert]

It's the rightwing fundamentalists in the USA who have brought the economic/foreign policies disasters of the past 8 years.

America will become stronger under Obama.

As a European, I do not welcome America becoming more powerful.
But I recognise that Obama will make America stronger

Europolitik...BS.
You just say anything and mention you're a Euro...not an excuse for ignorance on a subject you are discussing.
It was Barney Frank and C.Dodd, and Clinton Admin hacks along with Acorn, that pressured the Congress into forcing the Credit Industries to loan more to unworthy and below Prime borrowers; then kept the Repubs from reining in Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac when it may have done some good.
All recorded and denied over and over by blind Dem O-Zombies...the Prez was the largest or 2nd largest beneficiary of money from the crashed lenders, FM/FM, Countrywide...they bought several congressmen including Obama...and now the fingers point at Bush/Cheney.
I find incompetent Dems still in power who were responsible, and with even more power from being unopposed they are even more dangerous to the economic health of the US.
Missed all that, did ya?

 

[sproing99]

There's no way Merkel could ever be described as a socialist.

She's the chair of CDU for heaven's sake.

I'll grant you Zapatero

 

[Hot Mega]

Done...easy.

Sorry, try again....I raise you a "whiny" Malkin rant. Just as I suspected.

Malkin;

The contrast between Obama's statements is striking: He's "deeply saddened" by the murder of a U.S. soldier, but "shocked and outraged" by the murder of an abortionist? The murder of a U.S. soldier is a "senseless" act of violence but the murder of an abortionist is a "heinous" act of violence?
Obama musters up moral outrage to denounce the wicked deed committed in Kansas, but seems almost resigned to the tragedy or "man-caused disaster" that occurred in Arkansas.

Why the different treatment of the two acts of terrorism? As Michelle Malkin wrote earlier today:

When a right-wing Christian vigilante kills, millions of fingers pull the trigger. When a left-wing Muslim vigilante kills, he kills alone. These are the instantly ossifying narratives in the Sunday shooting death of Kansas late-term abortionist George Tiller versus the Monday shootings of two Arkansas military recruiters.

Tiller’s suspected murderer, Scott Roeder, was white, Christian, anti-government, and anti-abortion. The gunman in the military recruiting center attack, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, was black, a Muslim convert, anti-military, and anti-American. Both crimes are despicable, cowardly acts of domestic terrorism. But the disparate treatment of the two brutal cases by both the White House and the media is striking.

So his terminology needs to conform to her expectations?? The difference in her mind is "striking". Uh, okay...therefore, what??? Obama hates US troops?? Is an Islamo-terrorist symp?? What is the "there" in that whole silly excuse for adding to her blog??

Memo to Malkin (and Malkin symps.) He already used the "shocked and outraged" take. Also, his language with respect to the slain recruiters is utterly consistent with the language military ombudsmen use in notifying NOKs of military deaths.

Also, she alleges Obama quietly leaked his response to some local press outlet. Nowhere is that confirmed in the link (other than her claims and a link to the local story that claims no exclusive) as many outlets reported the same quote first hand (i.e. without crediting the source she claims is the only first hand recipient) his comments. But let's not let the facts a good attempt to mislead the sheeple.

 

[deltaoscarbravo]

Europolitik...BS.
You just say anything and mention you're a Euro...not an excuse for ignorance on a subject you are discussing.
It was Barney Frank and C.Dodd, and Clinton Admin hacks along with Acorn, that pressured the Congress into forcing the Credit Industries to loan more to unworthy and below Prime borrowers; then kept the Repubs from reining in Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac when it may have done some good.
All recorded and denied over and over by blind Dem O-Zombies...the Prez was the largest or 2nd largest beneficiary of money from the crashed lenders, FM/FM, Countrywide...they bought several congressmen including Obama...and now the fingers point at Bush/Cheney.
I find incompetent Dems still in power who were responsible, and with even more power from being unopposed they are even more dangerous to the economic health of the US.
Missed all that, did ya?

You don't know what you're talking about.

The fact of the matter is that under Clinton, your country had a trade surplus, record low unemployment, balance of payments surplus, international prestige through peace deals in the Balkans and Northern Ireland.
America enjoyed under Clinton unprecedented economic growth : it is in hindsight a golden economic era.
He pilotted NAFTA to fruition - and helped to get GATT reforms in 1997.
An outstanding Presidency and a superb economic stewardship.
All done while the Republicans controlled Congress.


And remember Clinton inherited an economy in poor shape, balance of payments deficit.


Your fellow texan has managed to bring your country to cusp of economic disaster.
Politically/economically your country has regressed since 2000.

 

[deltaoscarbravo]

Oh really because Clinton made things so great too?
Kissing Arab's nation asses and kissing the UN's ass is not going to save the USA. You must be really naive if you think that Obama will improve things over the long run. The only president who gave USA a good reputation and a stronger economic situation was Reagan where there were high salaries and a real economic growth. Obama wants to implement a social system which is completely useless and that will not work over the long run.

You and Mega are hilarious.

Clinton's presidency was superb on many levels.
In terms of international politics, he achieved the end of two conflicts, Northern Ireland (which raged since 1969) and in the Balkans where hundreds of thousands died.
He almost brought an historic agreement between Barak and Arafat in the last days of his presidency.
In terms of the economy, he inherited a 6% unemployment rate, a balance of payments deficit and a trade deficit.
Leaving office, unemployment at was 3.5% - an historic low for USA - the USA had a trade surplus, a balanceof payment surplus ($200 billion).
Clinton's presidency was a success.

I think Obama by re-hiring a lot of Clintons great team is starting to tackle the issues and the disasters of the George Bush administration.

 

[Hot Mega]

You don't know what you're talking about.

The fact of the matter is that under Clinton, your country had a trade surplus, record low unemployment, balance of payments surplus, international prestige through peace deals in the Balkans and Northern Ireland.
America enjoyed under Clinton unprecedented economic growth : it is in hindsight a golden economic era.
He pilotted NAFTA to fruition - and helped to get GATT reforms in 1997.
An outstanding Presidency and a superb economic stewardship.
All done while the Republicans controlled Congress.


And remember Clinton inherited an economy in poor shape, balance of payments deficit.


Your fellow texan has managed to bring your country to cusp of economic disaster.
Politically/economically your country has regressed since 2000.

Shhhhh. The rule you need to accept is Ronald Reagan is responsible for all prosperity under Clinton (and any future Democratic POTUS hence forward). How? Well it doesn't really matter as long as it's repeated over and over again so it can magically become true.

 

[deltaoscarbravo]

Shhhhh. The rule you need to accept is Ronald Reagan is responsible for all prosperity under Clinton (and any future Democratic POTUS hence forward). How? Well it doesn't really matter as long as it's repeated over and over again so it can magically become true.

Really?
If your thesis is correct (and it isn't, I might add),then explain to me why in 1992, Clinton inherited a (then) record balance of payments deficit, trade deficit, increased unemployment levels?

Those record deficits have now been surpassed by George W Bush : another Republican president.

 

[Hot Mega]

Really?
If your thesis is correct (and it isn't, I might add),then explain to me why in 1992, Clinton inherited a (then) record balance of payments deficit, trade deficit, increased unemployment levels?

Those record deficits have now been surpassed by George W Bush : another Republican president.

It was sarcasm. Clinton's opponents have regularly attributed any prosperity during and subsequent to Reagan's term as the doing of Reagan.

Undoubtedly if America recovers soon and/or prospers under Obama....his opponents certainly won't attribute it to him...

Bush was such and abject failure that the only thing left for them to do is hearken back to Reagan...some kind of way. Don't worry they'll contrive a whopper when they do...:rofl:

 

[deltaoscarbravo]

It was sarcasm. Clinton's opponents have regularly attributed any prosperity during and subsequent to Reagan's term as the doing of Reagan.

Undoubtedly if America recovers soon and/or prospers under Obama....his opponents certainly won't attribute it to him...

Bush was such and abject failure that the only thing left for them to do is hearken back to Reagan...some kind of way. Don't worry they'll contrive a whopper when they do...:rofl:

Hmmmmm.

I think you prejudicial view of Obama obscures any attempt you make at what you claim is sarcasm.

Reagan's presidency was the beginning of the decline.

 

[Hot Mega]

Hmmmmm.

I think you prejudicial view of Obama obscures any attempt you make at what you claim is sarcasm.

Reagan's presidency was the beginning of the decline.

I don't think you understand. I wasn't being serious about the, "you need to understand" Reagan being responsible for all of America's success since his presidency.

However, there are Reagan worshipers who practically will try and find any mechanism to attribute US success any time after Reagan's term a result of his presidency.

Here's an example, some Clinton opponents suggest that his success was the product of Reagan (the one man of course) winning all by himself the "Cold War" and as such Clinton didn't have to spend as much on the military.

Never mind the evidence that the primary reason for whatever economic prosperity we enjoyed under Reagan was a result of his spending.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[Shindekudasai]

germany- yes with merkel

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a long time! :1orglaugh Merkel, the grand leader of the German christian conservative party who even ousted right-wing Stoiber (who was called the guillotine of Bavaria) and was bosom buddies with George W. and is still with France's right-wing president Sarkozy, a socialist?!
Please inform yourself next time before you post outrageous stuff like that.

Europolitik...BS.

A little bit arrogant, no? Especially for someone from Texas.

You just say anything and mention you're a Euro...not an excuse for ignorance on a subject you are discussing.
It was Barney Frank and C.Dodd, and Clinton Admin hacks along with Acorn, that pressured the Congress into forcing the Credit Industries to loan more to unworthy and below Prime borrowers; then kept the Repubs from reining in Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac when it may have done some good.
All recorded and denied over and over by blind Dem O-Zombies...the Prez was the largest or 2nd largest beneficiary of money from the crashed lenders, FM/FM, Countrywide...they bought several congressmen including Obama...and now the fingers point at Bush/Cheney.
I find incompetent Dems still in power who were responsible, and with even more power from being unopposed they are even more dangerous to the economic health of the US.
Missed all that, did ya?

Well, I can rebuke you for that so easily, it almost makes me fall asleep of boredom. Just because you're the arrogant, self-absorbed type, doesn't give you an "excuse for ignorance on a subject you are discussing". The laws aside, that were passed during the Clinton administration, the Reagan-Revolution is what started the whole thing. Alongside with the end of the new Economy, after which the banks and wall-street needed a new market to grow on, and the events under the Bush administration (9/11, trade deficit, Federal Reserve policy (for example the low federal funds rate), Afghanistan war) the bed was made. Or are you going to tell me, that the banks started giving away Cov-light loans and other financial constructs similar to that under Clinton already? Are you really going to tell me, that neo-liberal America actually pressed the banks into giving Ninja-loans?
Subprime givers like New Century (which by the way was the second-biggest subprime mortgage lender in the United States and the first one to crash) grew rapidly during the years of the Bush administration. You should have had better regulations for what we call "Zweckgesellschaften". But that term doesn't even exist in American English, because America refused to make laws for about it and to define these financial constructs, so banks and other financial service providers could create more and more of them like conduits, special investment vehicles, special purpose vehicles, structured investment vehicles, special purpose entities, special purpose corporations etc out of thin air, which then again created more and more Asset-Backed Commercial Papers or Collateralized Debt Obligations by making bonds out of other Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities, Collateralized Debt Obligations, Asset-Backed Commercial Papers etc which were already made on the receivables of loans that were higher than the "Beleihungswert" (a term also unknown to American bankers, it defines in a more accurate way the Loan-To-Value Ratio, because it gives you a better basis to calculate the risks) of the assets.
And I could go on and on about this for at least 20 pages, but I surely won't. Because first, I don't want to bore anyone here to death with it, and secondly, we all know how whiny you get when I post more than a couple of words. At least in most cases that's one of the few arguments you have... the length of other people's postings...

 

[Philbert]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a long time! :1orglaugh Merkel, the grand leader of the German christian conservative party who even ousted right-wing Stoiber (who was called the guillotine of Bavaria) and was bosom buddies with George W. and is still with France's right-wing president Sarkozy, a socialist?!
Please inform yourself next time before you post outrageous stuff like that.



A little bit arrogant, no? Especially for someone from Texas.


Well, I can rebuke you for that so easily, it almost makes me fall asleep of boredom. Just because you're the arrogant, self-absorbed type, doesn't give you an "excuse for ignorance on a subject you are discussing". The laws aside, that were passed during the Clinton administration, the Reagan-Revolution is what started the whole thing. Alongside with the end of the new Economy, after which the banks and wall-street needed a new market to grow on, and the events under the Bush administration (9/11, trade deficit, Federal Reserve policy (for example the low federal funds rate), Afghanistan war) the bed was made. Or are you going to tell me, that the banks started giving away Cov-light loans and other financial constructs similar to that under Clinton already? Are you really going to tell me, that neo-liberal America actually pressed the banks into giving Ninja-loans?
Subprime givers like New Century (which by the way was the second-biggest subprime mortgage lender in the United States and the first one to crash) grew rapidly during the years of the Bush administration. You should have had better regulations for what we call "Zweckgesellschaften". But that term doesn't even exist in American English, because America refused to make laws for about it and to define these financial constructs, so banks and other financial service providers could create more and more of them like conduits, special investment vehicles, special purpose vehicles, structured investment vehicles, special purpose entities, special purpose corporations etc out of thin air, which then again created more and more Asset-Backed Commercial Papers or Collateralized Debt Obligations by making bonds out of other Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities, Collateralized Debt Obligations, Asset-Backed Commercial Papers etc which were already made on the receivables of loans that were higher than the "Beleihungswert" (a term also unknown to American bankers, it defines in a more accurate way the Loan-To-Value Ratio, because it gives you a better basis to calculate the risks) of the assets.
And I could go on and on about this for at least 20 pages, but I surely won't. Because first, I don't want to bore anyone here to death with it, and secondly, we all know how whiny you get when I post more than a couple of words. At least in most cases that's one of the few arguments you have... the length of other people's postings...

Admit it...I'm only one among many who find your over-worded fairly eloquent but fairly meaningless posts tedious and boring, especially when you always jump in wherever and start 500 words going on just about anything. Anything...:rofl:
You say pretty endlessly not much.

 

[Philbert]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in a long time! :1orglaugh Merkel, the grand leader of the German christian conservative party who even ousted right-wing Stoiber (who was called the guillotine of Bavaria) and was bosom buddies with George W. and is still with France's right-wing president Sarkozy, a socialist?!
Please inform yourself next time before you post outrageous stuff like that.



A little bit arrogant, no? Especially for someone from Texas.


Well, I can rebuke you for that so easily, it almost makes me fall asleep of boredom. Just because you're the arrogant, self-absorbed type, doesn't give you an "excuse for ignorance on a subject you are discussing". The laws aside, that were passed during the Clinton administration, the Reagan-Revolution is what started the whole thing. Alongside with the end of the new Economy, after which the banks and wall-street needed a new market to grow on, and the events under the Bush administration (9/11, trade deficit, Federal Reserve policy (for example the low federal funds rate), Afghanistan war) the bed was made. Or are you going to tell me, that the banks started giving away Cov-light loans and other financial constructs similar to that under Clinton already? Are you really going to tell me, that neo-liberal America actually pressed the banks into giving Ninja-loans?
Subprime givers like New Century (which by the way was the second-biggest subprime mortgage lender in the United States and the first one to crash) grew rapidly during the years of the Bush administration. You should have had better regulations for what we call "Zweckgesellschaften". But that term doesn't even exist in American English, because America refused to make laws for about it and to define these financial constructs, so banks and other financial service providers could create more and more of them like conduits, special investment vehicles, special purpose vehicles, structured investment vehicles, special purpose entities, special purpose corporations etc out of thin air, which then again created more and more Asset-Backed Commercial Papers or Collateralized Debt Obligations by making bonds out of other Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities, Collateralized Debt Obligations, Asset-Backed Commercial Papers etc which were already made on the receivables of loans that were higher than the "Beleihungswert" (a term also unknown to American bankers, it defines in a more accurate way the Loan-To-Value Ratio, because it gives you a better basis to calculate the risks) of the assets.
And I could go on and on about this for at least 20 pages, but I surely won't. Because first, I don't want to bore anyone here to death with it, and secondly, we all know how whiny you get when I post more than a couple of words. At least in most cases that's one of the few arguments you have... the length of other people's postings...

Admit it...I'm only one among many who find your over-worded fairly eloquent but fairly meaningless posts tedious and boring, especially when you always jump in wherever and start 500 words going on just about anything. Anything...:rofl:
You say pretty endlessly not much.

 

[Shindekudasai]

Admit it...I'm only one among many who find your over-worded fairly eloquent but fairly meaningless posts tedious and boring, especially when you always jump in wherever and start 500 words going on just about anything. Anything...:rofl:
You say pretty endlessly not much.

Actually, I was on point the whole time. The problem is just like I already said, you are obviously incapable of taking in more than two sentences at a time. Especially if there are too many "big words" in there. But apparently your stupidity is my fault. Who would've guessed... :dunno:
If you find informative and argumentative postings tedious and boring, than go and watch America's Next Top Model. Don't take it out on others and don't participate in discussions that are way over your head. If the only point you're trying to make here is that you're childish and shameless, you got that point across.

Now if you don't have a normal, grown-up, and informed response, do me a favor and stay out of this thread, hate-monger. And spare me any pseudo-witty and oh so smart remarks.

 

[Nester6]

Oh really because Clinton made things so great too?
Kissing Arab's nation asses and kissing the UN's ass is not going to save the USA. You must be really naive if you think that Obama will improve things over the long run. The only president who gave USA a good reputation and a stronger economic situation was Reagan where there were high salaries and a real economic growth. Obama wants to implement a social system which is completely useless and that will not work over the long run.

Absolutely correct. He is a socialist through and through.

 

[Philbert]

Actually, I was on point the whole time. The problem is just like I already said, you are obviously incapable of taking in more than two sentences at a time. Especially if there are too many "big words" in there. But apparently your stupidity is my fault. Who would've guessed... :dunno:
If you find informative and argumentative postings tedious and boring, than go and watch America's Next Top Model. Don't take it out on others and don't participate in discussions that are way over your head. If the only point you're trying to make here is that you're childish and shameless, you got that point across.

Now if you don't have a normal, grown-up, and informed response, do me a favor and stay out of this thread, hate-monger. And spare me any pseudo-witty and oh so smart remarks.

You are among several mental children , 8th grade level emotional maturity, that post here...you are funnier than you realize.
Yes, there are those who see through your whiny complaints and don't take you seriously...you're a foolish person, and it shows.
Your overblown attempts at crushing your opponent are so childish...yet you aren't embarrassed at all, and keep on posting your juvenile put downs.
Do you ever actually hurt someone's feelings? Or are you too funny to be effective?:rofl:

I am 2 degrees to the left of bored with your bumbling attempts to look and sound real smart...like nothing could be further.
You aren't that smart...get over it!
And keep on telling me you think I can't get what you almost say, and I can only handle 2 sentences at a time (why not 1, or 3 at a time...did you spend sleepytime calculating the actual amount? :rofl2; you sound like the dweeb you are.
You and a few others make hate-filled posts constantly, then call others "hatemongers"...but there are plenty of pretty smart and literate members who you don't impress and these are the reason most older members come to "Talk"; not whackos like DukeLaCross, that shit-eating lovecock, and the whole crew of flaky posters who really don't give a shit about anything.
I like reading several members who are opposed to my views, but they are actually literate and straight up.
Unlike the MonkeyMan, his own biggest fan. You are truly boring in the scheme of things...:moon:

 

[sproing99]

Absolutely correct. He is a socialist through and through.

Obama is not a socialist. At best he is a social democrat.

In the context of the US political spectrum he is left wing on some issues (though decidedly right wing on others) but as a whole the US is quite right wing compared to many (most ?) European countries.