Ukraine

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's not about weapons, Russia's ability to use direct military force is geographically quite limited. They went to Crimea as it was one of the few important places they thought they could get away with it.

If its not about weapons, why are we sending military fly-overs in the Baltics. Russia used their geographically limited weapons to do what "they thought they could get away with . . ." So far they have. So far, you and they are in agreement with what they could do. If "sanctions" don't chase them out, then what?

The thing is they already have a military presence there and by treaty can have a very large military presence until 2048. Aside from some economic output does Crimea really gain them all that much? Given the push back from the West a land grab into eastern Ukraine doesn't seem very likely.

OK. Sounds like everything is under control. Nothing to see here. Let's move along. Tend to our own political bickering. Get back to redistributing billions over here instead of there.

It's amazing how the GOP has jumped on Obama even going so far as to blame him for Crimea because he's "weak."

That's more like it. Let's bitch about the GOP jumping on Obama for something he does. How dare they? But they are geographically . . . er . . . politically quite limited. Jumping on Obama is one of the few ploys they think they can get away with. That's all they do anyway--haven't had a good policy in over ten years. Give the poor slobs a break. They're just projecting. They're the ones who are really "weak."

I think the opposite may be true, our policy is putting a lot of strain on Russia and forcing their hand.

It seems their hand forced its way into one of the few places they could get away with. Do "we" (divided you know) want to force them some more?

Regardless, the lack of unity must be giving Putin all the reassurance they need that we won't act. If anything, comments by the likes of Sen Graham and Rep Rogers are emboldening Russia's actions.

Hush, hush Graham and Rogers. Quit acting like Jane Fonda. Oh wait, she did that during time of war, not before it started. Oh yeah, the Dems acted that way during the Iraq war too. Kind of emboldened the "insurgents." Ah, but GOP types putting in their two cents worth before a war starts--that's just plain disunifying. They should just shut up and go along with whatever O wants to do. That's what they eventually do anyway.

Certainly the EU should act more as a union, but that doesn't count us out of it. We don't rely on Russia for much compared to the EU and they'll need our backing to lessen any economic ties, they can't do it alone.

-spence

They could EASILY do it alone if they had the will, the courage, and the . . . uh . . . what was that you were saying about GOP meddling . . . oh, yeah--the UNITY. And it wouldn't hurt their economic ties with us. And if we allowed ourselves to export oil it would more than make up whatever they'd lose from Russia. But we and they have a myriad of squabbles and differences that lead to lack of unity.

The EU is supposed to be an economic union. But most of its members don't seem to have a grasp of basic economics. Many were eager to jump into NATO for protection from the big bad bear, and into the EU for handouts. It's almost as if Germany actually was the eventual winner of WWII. It has the controlling hand in the EU. And the outliers have to go along in order to get bailed out of their ineptitude. At the very least, all the member countries could contribute bodies for a united military force--which could easily defend itself against Russia. Yet we still have forces there.

And here at home, we are bankrupt and proposing to go even further in debt, are downsizing the military, have "commitments" to other countries in our hemisphere and to Pacific Rim countries. The Caribbean, Central and South Americans have serious economic problems which feed us with millions of illegal immigrants. And continuously have surges of Marxist puppet dictators (with whom Putin threatens to ally). Our Pacific allies are constantly threatened by China and N. Korea (Oh yeah, Russia is making some pact with China). What would we do if China decided to do a Crimea on Taiwan? Our ties to the Middle East drain us and confuse us, and our strongest ally there is daily under siege and in threat of annihilation, and other "allies" there fund those who wish to destroy us. We won't allow Canada to build a pipe line which has been determined not to be a threat to the environment. (And, oh, as a funny aside, the Canadian Government and the State of Michigan agreed on building another bridge to each other to ease the crossing traffic jams due to the security inspections since 9/11. The Obama Administration okayed the deal and promised $200 million, I think, not sure of the figure, to kick in for the U.S. side of the obligations. But Obama's proposed budget left that paltry sum out. So, the upshot, the Democrat candidate running to replace the retiring Senator Carl Levin, and who is behind in the polls is "jumping" in and proposing a bill to put the money back in federal budget. The Republican Governor had successfully fought for the bridged to be built, his Republican state congress backed him, and now the Democrat candidate who is behind in the polls is going to be the "savior" of the project!! Wanna bet there was a little "smart" Chicago Style collusion to leave the bill out of the budget so he could be the knight in shining armor?)

So we have these monumental problems which we don't seem to have a serious answer for, but somehow we're supposed to be the deciding factor in the Ukraine dispute, even though Russia is a third world militarily second rate and geographically limited runt?

And what is it, exactly, that the EU is doing to help us with our problems?

It's almost like the Canada/Michigan bridge thing--like we're behind in the polls but put a shining light on our dim situation by coming in to save the day in some off the wall matter that distracts from the bad moment. Just keep the distractions coming till the mid terms.

[spence]

I guess you're right, we should just cut the EU off and let Russia strengthen it's economic position in the world. There's not a lot we can do about it anyway with Obama and Kerry running around encouraging this kind of primative behavior. Putin may even put his shirt back on...

Perhaps Russia can use it's strengthened position in Crimea to expand it's navy and start patrolling the Ocean's shipping lanes for us. The savings for the US taxpayer here would be huge and could be returned to the wealthy to increase the supply of goods. Good lord, just imagine if we had another smartphone option to choose from!

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I guess you're right, we should just cut the EU off

When did I suggest we cut the EU off? Continuing trade with them and selling them oil if Russia refuses and installing anti-ballistic sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, for starters, is hardly cutting them off. But becoming involved in their internecine squabbles, especially when they should be fully capable of solving those themselves, seems more like meddling than helping and making us out to be villains and bullies like those we don't like.

and let Russia strengthen it's economic position in the world.

Heaven forbid we should let someone else strengthen their economic position, especially when we continue, out of fairness no doubt, to weaken our own.

There's not a lot we can do about it anyway with Obama and Kerry running around encouraging this kind of primative behavior. Putin may even put his shirt back on...

Obama and Kerry run around with primitive behavior in their home country with successful results. Primitive is not always bad. Employing some primitive strength would certainly help the EU in its relations with Russia.

Perhaps Russia can use it's strengthened position in Crimea to expand it's navy and start patrolling the Ocean's shipping lanes for us.

Oh, so now the weak little gambit into Crimea has actually strengthened Russia's position?

The savings for the US taxpayer here would be huge and could be returned to the wealthy to increase the supply of goods. Good lord, just imagine if we had another smartphone option to choose from!

-spence

Uh . . . savings for the US taxpayer??? When has our beloved, benevolent, debt racking Federal Government shown an honest interest in doing that? And haven't the wealthy gained economic ground against the not wealthy under Obama's tax the rich policies?

[spence]

Ok, so now we should reinvest in Cold War tension to inflame a region already dependent on Russian energy? I'm not against using our natural gas surplus to help the EU become more independent, but balancing strategic weapons against home heating will come at quite a cost.

I think Russia has over-reached with Crimea. They may succeed in keeping it, but I don't think it's going to gain them much. It's a novelty prize for Putin if anything and will only accelerate Ukraine's status in the EU assuming they can get their crap together.

I think if Russia tries to annex the east and capture most of Ukraine's industrial output you'll see civil war...they don't want that.

The bigger picture is Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East and Asia.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Ok, so now we should reinvest in Cold War tension to inflame a region already dependent on Russian energy? I'm not against using our natural gas surplus to help the EU become more independent, but balancing strategic weapons against home heating will come at quite a cost.

Holy crap, Spence! Those two sentences contain such a wide spectrum of diversely connected thought, fraught with a multiplicity of possible analyses each with divergent solutions, that it would take a War and Peace length book to give them an adequate response. I congratulate you for the genius like capacity to conceptualize and mix such a conglomeration of topics all at once in a brief cocktail of geopolitical dictum.

I'll give it a brief shot. The "we" whom you say should reinvest is an illusive pronoun here, and, dependent on who the "we" is, will have different responses. And that is critical. I take it you mean the U.S. government? Well, you probably know by now that I think the U.S. government is supposed to be very limited into what it can invest. One of the main things within that limitation is the national defense. That is an ongoing responsibility which is not supposed to be turned on only in crisis. It is not a duty to be performed only in time of war, cold or hot. The strength of a nation depends on various things, one of which is the ability to defend itself against whatever dangers or threats that obviously exist, and against those that might and can occur when the guard is down. It is a main responsibility of the central government to be on guard so that the nation can go about those other things that make the nation strong and great. Those who execute the duties of defense must not endanger the nation by bureaucratically weakening defensive capability in order not to "provoke" other nations into a "Cold War Tension." Those who wish you no harm should not take offense at your prudence. If they are competent, they will also maintain a strong defense.

But when the central government cuts defense investment and diverts it to other projects in which it is not empowered by the social compact to participate, it weakens the nation in every respect. It centralizes, thus makes static, the function and regulation of those various things that are intended for the People to create in constantly evolving and competitive ways. It limits the freedom of the People when it seizes their duties and responsibilities to itself to dole out to crony friends, and it diverts away the People's wealth which was meant for their defense, thus weakening its own true responsibility as well as the strength of the nation.

As for inflaming a region, it is more inflamed now than during the Cold War. And if "we" and the EU had invested in powerful military defense, I suspect it might be much less inflamed. But "we" and they, as governments, chose to invest the People's money into various schemes which usually exacerbated that which they were supposed to cure. It was not left for "We" the People to invest the billions and trillions which did not go into the common defense. How much richer, stronger, and freer our nations would be if "We" were allowed to invest our wealth as our social compact intended, and if "we" the central government had stuck only to what "We" had originally granted it!

As far as balancing home heating and strategic weapons goes--the point is that there is no need to balance. Those are meant to be different domains. The strategic weapons for the common defense is the domain of "we" the government, and home heating is the domain of "We" the People. The governments, in order to do that which they are not supposed to do, confiscate WAY more money than is required to fund strategic weapons. All that excess money left in the hands of the People and their entrepreneurs would find more innovative and economical ways to take care of home heating.

I think Russia has over-reached with Crimea. They may succeed in keeping it, but I don't think it's going to gain them much. It's a novelty prize for Putin if anything and will only accelerate Ukraine's status in the EU assuming they can get their crap together.

I think if Russia tries to annex the east and capture most of Ukraine's industrial output you'll see civil war...they don't want that.

The bigger picture is Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East and Asia.

-spence

If "we" and "We" tended to all that we are supposed to tend, Russia and China, with the way their "we" and "We" operate, would dissolve into irrelevance.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Holy crap, Spence! Those two sentences contain such a wide spectrum of diversely connected thought, fraught with a multiplicity of possible analyses each with divergent solutions, that it would take a War and Peace length book to give them an adequate response. I congratulate you for the genius like capacity to conceptualize and mix such a conglomeration of topics all at once in a brief cocktail of geopolitical dictum.

Sorry, I had to deal with kids so I just condensed my stream.

I'll give it a brief shot. The "we" whom you say should reinvest is an illusive pronoun here, and, dependent on who the "we" is, will have different responses. And that is critical. I take it you mean the U.S. government? Well, you probably know by now that I think the U.S. government is supposed to be very limited into what it can invest. One of the main things within that limitation is the national defense. That is an ongoing responsibility which is not supposed to be turned on only in crisis. It is not a duty to be performed only in time of war, cold or hot. The strength of a nation depends on various things, one of which is the ability to defend itself against whatever dangers or threats that obviously exist, and against those that might and can occur when the guard is down. It is a main responsibility of the central government to be on guard so that the nation can go about those other things that make the nation strong and great. Those who execute the duties of defense must not endanger the nation by bureaucratically weakening defensive capability in order not to "provoke" other nations into a "Cold War Tension." Those who wish you no harm should not take offense at your prudence. If they are competent, they will also maintain a strong defense.

But in the real world our defense and our economy are completely interwoven. This has been a big reason for the growth of the US economy and the growth of the global economy. It was a marriage of convenience more than an ideological motivation.

I think the question today is if they're so interwoven so as to be inseparable.

But when the central government cuts defense investment and diverts it to other projects in which it is not empowered by the social compact to participate, it weakens the nation in every respect. It centralizes, thus makes static, the function and regulation of those various things that are intended for the People to create in constantly evolving and competitive ways. It limits the freedom of the People when it seizes their duties and responsibilities to itself to dole out to crony friends, and it diverts away the People's wealth which was meant for their defense, thus weakening its own true responsibility as well as the strength of the nation.

But so much of the "defense investment" has already been diverted to other projects through the Constitutionally appropriated system. It's not just providing for common defense, it's a yearly 1.5 trillion dollar tax recycler pumping billions back into our GDP and employing millions of workers.

As for inflaming a region, it is more inflamed now than during the Cold War.

Nonsense. You just saw a winter Olympics not more than 280 miles from where anonymous troops (wearing uniforms they picked up at the local Cabellas) are harassing Ukrainian troops. That's the distance from Providence to Philadelphia.

Neighbor Poland is the fastest growing economy in the EU and Belarus, Slovakia, Hungary, Turkey even Georgia are all doing impressively well.

Perhaps this is why Putin is so interested in Crimea, Russia is on the defensive.

And if "we" and the EU had invested in powerful military defense, I suspect it might be much less inflamed. But "we" and they, as governments, chose to invest the People's money into various schemes which usually exacerbated that which they were supposed to cure. It was not left for "We" the People to invest the billions and trillions which did not go into the common defense. How much richer, stronger, and freer our nations would be if "We" were allowed to invest our wealth as our social compact intended, and if "we" the central government had stuck only to what "We" had originally granted it!

Instead of investing in military I think more money has been invested to helping nations stabilize and build growth economies.

As far as balancing home heating and strategic weapons goes--the point is that there is no need to balance. Those are meant to be different domains. The strategic weapons for the common defense is the domain of "we" the government, and home heating is the domain of "We" the People. The governments, in order to do that which they are not supposed to do, confiscate WAY more money than is required to fund strategic weapons. All that excess money left in the hands of the People and their entrepreneurs would find more innovative and economical ways to take care of home heating.If "we" and "We" tended to all that we are supposed to tend, Russia and China, with the way their "we" and "We" operate, would dissolve into irrelevance.

They are not different domains if your domain is the overlay between the weapons and the home. An investment in armament has to be paid twice, once the the actual arms and again for the influence to position them.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Sorry, I had to deal with kids so I just condensed my stream.

No need to apologize. I like figuring out puzzles. Besides, why apologize for being complemented?

But in the real world our defense and our economy are completely interwoven.

Of course they're "interwoven" when a unitary weaver is the master and manipulator of the weave. The interweaving is a result of top-down totalitarian method of governing--the rule by men.

But they are "interdependent" when all facets of society participate on their own volition and with different individual talents and are not coerced by others. All, including the government, in this method, are limited by rule of law

This has been a big reason for the growth of the US economy and the growth of the global economy. It was a marriage of convenience more than an ideological motivation.

The U.S. economy has grown through the contributive efforts of its people. It grew faster and more powerfully when its people were less "regulated" by government. The "economy" grows more sluggishly when top down regulations are imposed--from which it recovers with new innovations in response. But as the cycles continue, it becomes more difficult for the smaller entrepreneurs to flourish and more necessary for "business" to become larger to comply with expanding regulations. To which government responds with more regulations, which, since they are in response to "economies of scale," favor the large and discourage the small. So the trend is bigger, and growing so, government and corporations. Individuals become cogs in the "interwoven" system.

So the "real world" to which you refer is the progressive/socialist dream/objective of the all-powerful central bureaucracy directing the distribution of wealth, either directly or through its subsidiary economies of scale, to the complacent masses who are kept "happy" cradle to grave and allowed the "freedom" prescribed by the State and its ruling experts. It is a tight, efficient, weave.

Your version of the "real world" denies the existence of individuals mastering their own fate and whose interdependent cooperation and innovation can create growth. All of which would actually have the greatest evolutionary potential. Your "real world" vision leads to a relatively static statism.

I think the question today is if they're so interwoven so as to be inseparable.

My answer would be that in a statist society they are inseparable since the State determines the defense and the "economy." Insofar as the progressive State has not been completely established, individuals have been able to wiggle their way through the regulatory maze and impede its growth. Their is a sort of stand-off. If State run health care eventually happens, the wiggle room decreases dramatically.

But so much of the "defense investment" has already been diverted to other projects through the Constitutionally appropriated system. It's not just providing for common defense, it's a yearly 1.5 trillion dollar tax recycler pumping billions back into our GDP and employing millions of workers.

You said that well--Constitutionally APPROPRIATED system. The Constitution has been appropriated by progressives and "interpreted" to allow them to federally create "other projects" which the original Constitution would not have allowed the Federal Government to do. This was the first great step toward the growth in the power of the central government. This not only allows it to divert defense money to other projects, but to confiscate even much larger monies from the private sector to divert into pet projects many of which fail. And those that stick in spite of fiscal insolvency become "necessary" because they have been "interwoven" into the fabric of society.

Recycling billions of tax "revenues" back into GDP is a peculiar way to grow wealth. Take it away, then give it back. And waste a lot of it before it is returned. What?--expansion of wealth cannot occur without government laundering private sector money first? Is that middle-man confiscation prerequisite to growth? The People just aren't capable of investing their own money and employing millions of people--the government has to do it for them? No--what makes the silly process necessary is the facilitation of government control. GOVERNMENT deciding the growth and direction society.

Nonsense. You just saw a winter Olympics not more than 280 miles from where anonymous troops (wearing uniforms they picked up at the local Cabellas) are harassing Ukrainian troops. That's the distance from Providence to Philadelphia.

There were Olympics during the Cold War. And just as in Sochi, the Russians used to dominate. And that region wasn't inflamed then. It was totally and effectively dominated by Soviet rule without inflammatory resistance.


Neighbor Poland is the fastest growing economy in the EU and Belarus, Slovakia, Hungary, Turkey even Georgia are all doing impressively well.

Doesn't sound like they need our interference.

Perhaps this is why Putin is so interested in Crimea, Russia is on the defensive.

Very Orwellian--Russia is on the defensive.

Instead of investing in military I think more money has been invested to helping nations stabilize and build growth economies.

Right. "We" the government must invest in all the things necessary to stabilize and grow economies. "We" the people must wait and follow the proper commands. Well . . . that IS a form of government. There are others. It's obvious which type you prefer.

They are not different domains if your domain is the overlay between the weapons and the home. An investment in armament has to be paid twice, once the the actual arms and again for the influence to position them.

-spence

Of course they are not different domains in your preferred form of government.

But in a republican form (small "r") with limited government and constitutional separation of powers, and wherein that government is limited to specific defined duties, the domains are separate. And the investment in the U.S. armament, no matter how many times it's paid, is the domain of the Federal government. Investment in "the home" is the domain of the private sector. Federal Government "investment" in the private sector responsibility has more often been a debilitating intrusion on the People's ability to grow and self-govern. The Federal Government would perform its duties, including arming the military, far better if it stuck to its domain instead of spreading its, and the Peoples, resources and efforts over every facet of our lives.

You seem to be so immersed in progressive status quo that nothing else can creep into your perception of possibility. You seem to have that Dr. Pangloss vision that we're in the best of all possible worlds.

[Swimmer]

Many wise and thoughtful posts on this issue. How long does anyone think it will be before Putin moves on the rest of the country? Who would actually stand up to him?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[basswipe]

Apparently not much brain power being used in this thread.

Once again how arrogant and stupid Obama is.Its not our part of the world...stay away moron and let the Russians do the work for you.

[buckman]

He reset the clock all the way back to the Cold War . This is embarrassing .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

He reset the clock all the way back to the Cold War . This is embarrassing .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, what should we be doing then?

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by buckman

He reset the clock all the way back to the Cold War . This is embarrassing .
Posted from buckman's bomb shelter

It is embarrassing. But he is damned no matter what he does. If he did nothing.. he's viewed as a weak president. If he acts, he is kicking us back into the cold war... no win here...

its better to have a huge mystery to distract everyone, like a missing plane.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

It is embarrassing. But he is damned no matter what he does. If he did nothing.. he's viewed as a weak president. If he acts, he is kicking us back into the cold war... no win here...

its better to have a huge mystery to distract everyone, like a missing plane.

He needs to stop making threats he can't back up. The three idiots should just keep their mouth shut.
His policies are all over the place. We arm Al Qaeda, but we can't send arms to the Ukrainians. His spoken words make matters worse .
I agree stay out of it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

He needs to stop making threats he can't back up. The three idiots should just keep their mouth shut.
His policies are all over the place. We arm Al Qaeda, but we can't send arms to the Ukrainians. His spoken words make matters worse .
I agree stay out of it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Be specific.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Be specific.

-spence

In Obamas world this is specific
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by buckman

I agree stay out of it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's exactly what Putin planned all along after sizing up the administration's
actions, laying down red lines without back up, Kerry saying "sanctions would not be personal to Putin", and all the way back to the apology tour.
The statement by the President that because we are not in the 19th century and things have changed since, is so naïve. Human nature has never changed from day one. POWER will always be the ultimate goal.
Heard a statement the other day, "it's the KGB vs the PTA."

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

In Obamas world this is specific
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We said we'd work with the EU to impose sanctions and that's exactly what happened. It's an annoyance more than anything but there's not a lot we can do short-term.

It's a great opportunity to make fun of the President though, keep up the good work

-spence

[justplugit]

It's not making fun of the President, It's looking at the Administrations Policy
failures and misjudgments.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

It's not making fun of the President, It's looking at the Administrations Policy
failures and misjudgments.

What specific Obama Administration policy is a failure? If anything this represents a lack of long-term strategy to contain Russia's influence.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

What specific Obama Administration policy is a failure? If anything this represents a lack of long-term strategy to contain Russia's influence.

-spence

Nobody got time for dat !
It would take hours
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

What specific Obama Administration policy is a failure? If anything this represents a lack of long-term strategy to contain Russia's influence.

-spence

Let's make this easier.

What Obama policy is a failure because of republican obstruction and would have been a success if bipartisan agreement encouraged success?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Let's make this easier.

What Obama policy is a failure because of republican obstruction and would have been a success if bipartisan agreement encouraged success?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I give up.... Why don't you give us a hint . His "It wasn't my fault " policy clearly has some followers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Nah.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[basswipe]

Apparently our dumb-#^&#^&#^&#^& president has no issues with posturing.A Eurasian land war.....the US has no chance of winning this by itself and yet dumb-#^&#^&#^&#^& is willing to take us all the way.Challenging the former Soviet Union and and its former Republics to a war,good move moron.

HEY,OBAMA WAKE THE FVCK UP!I am not willing to die for your stupidity.And this includes all soldiers and a few of your former supporters.

Spence,Nebe,Rockhound,you guys willing to go die for this fvcking fool?Join the military and show your support for YOUR hero.This is the real challenge for you guys...step up or shut up.Are you willing to die for this fool?Are your children?

JohnR,MikeP and TDF...I will not shut my mouth despite the censorship.I've asked to be banned and no one here has the stones to do it and I will continue to tell the truth until forced out.

Obama is an idiot and completely Un-American and so are all those that support this ass-hole.

[Nebe]

Posturing is a lot different than solid actions.

Know what was more foolish? Iraq and Afghanistan.

Im not happy with what is going on right now either, but it is what it is.. a game of chest thumping.

Honestly i am not paying much attention to Obama these days. Ive lost hope in a way.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Posturing is a lot different than solid actions.

Know what was more foolish? Iraq and Afghanistan.

Im not happy with what is going on right now either, but it is what it is.. a game of chest thumping.

Honestly i am not paying much attention to Obama these days. Ive lost hope in a way.

Whether or not if Iraq and Afghanistan were "more" foolish, they were more than mere posturing. And they did project a U.S. power which was dangerous to provoke.

But you are wise to have lost hope in empty rhetoric. Next step is to lose hope in the government being the answer to our economic and social problems. We the People have the power to solve those problems, just as you, personally, solve yours. We must depend on ourselves, not the government.

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Honestly i am not paying much attention to Obama these days. Ive lost hope in a way.

That's a start.But I sure as hell would not stop paying attention to Obama as he is the problem.Losing hope is exactly what Obama wants...hopelessness is what he thrives on.

Don't lose hope...use your power and vote against him and his cronies this Fall.People just like you can make a difference.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by basswipe

JohnR,MikeP and TDF...I will not shut my mouth despite the censorship.I've asked to be banned and no one here has the stones to do it and I will continue to tell the truth until forced out.

Obama is an idiot and completely Un-American and so are all those that support this ass-hole.

We generally don't censor Norm. We let people say stupid things maybe even to a fault. You are making much more out of this than necessary.

Less than a dozen people have been banned here in the 13 -14 something years we've been around. Are you REALLY that hell bent on getting banned?

[spence]

Nobody seems to be able to name specific Obama policy decisions that "caused" the Ukraine crisis...hmmm...

I also wonder how much petty domestic undermining of Obama by Republicans in Congress has emboldened our adversaries. God, it's like some of them get off with the "Putin out maneuvered him" stuff.

Ultimately, what's happening in the Ukraine is bigger than any one President. As I said before, we need a unified long-term strategy.

-spence

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I also wonder how much petty domestic undermining of Obama by Republicans in Congress has emboldened our adversaries. God, it's like some of them get off with the "Putin out maneuvered him" stuff.

Pot, Kettle