Ingineers Ramblings

And Bush was so good at doing what he said-- like starting a war that knows no end, like tax cuts that increased our deficit with no end, etc etc. But you didn't worry about those things until an election came along... Speaking of elections there is Palin, oh you guys had such a good choice with her, and will run her again if you get half a chance. You do know how to run government for sure... right into the ground.

(Incidentally my guess is that they detained a lot of people with zero evidence and that's why the first ones were easy to let go. Now we have Republicans scaring every gullible American about how dangerous these people will be released on our streets-- which nobody proposed-- and our high security prisons won't keep them in either given they are so much more magical than our dangerous criminals who do get kept in). Republicans never cease to amaze me.
 

So Obama said he would close Gitmo, but now cannot and that is George Bush's fault. How many years into this administration is everything going to be George Bush's fault?

Most of us knew that he was talking out of his ass when he said he would close it within a year, but the left wing Koolaid drinkers just lapped it up.
 

They have not said they will not close it. They have said it cannot be done within a year. I think Republicans (not Bush) played a part in that when it was mentioned they would move the prisoners to other prisons and they set up the stink over it. I think Gitmo will close because its main purpose to being open is to have the freedom to torture and not use American laws for how prisoners are treated. The fact that it cannot be done as soon as it was hoped is more likely due to Republicans today. What I said about Bush was that it was easier to release the first bunch as from what i have heard many had no evidence at all against them. So we should release those we know are dangerous? Obama is a pragmatist, not a fool.

And since Bush/Cheney had 8 years to do the damage, you righties just have really thought Obama was a miracle worker if you expected results in less than a year to fix it all. Those who DID vote for him never expected any such thing.
 

and if there are any kool-aid drinkers, it's those who voted for the possibility (and likely will again) that Sarah Palin will be a president someday. Talk about people living in fantasy land.
 

Gitmo would have closed eventually under a republican too. But Obama is the one who said he would have it closed in 12 months and made such a big deal out of it. If the right and the left did not believe him when he said it. How come nobody from the mainstream media called him on it when he made the pledge?

And now he has really done very little to close it. Maybe he should appoint another Czar to be in charge of closing Gitmo, since the people he put in place so far have not done much.
 

Sarah Palin did spark some excitement from a lot of people, but I do not believe she has what it takes to be a major presidential candidate. I sure would like to see Mitt Romney again though.
 

Palin is still popular with her base I think she has a serious chance to be the candidate and maybe with Cheney if he's up to it... and how do you explain people like Bachmann? For pete's sake! When you guys get real candidates who seem to have real ideas besides religious epiphanies, then you can find fault with Obama... As for Romney, he had some things that a lot didn't like even in his own party. His supposed financial successes were nothing in comparison to what the US faces today. I don't think he can win the nomination without being an extremist rightie and then how does he govern if he should happen to win. I think you have to get control of your party if you hope to have a real conservative candidate. I don't even know who it'd be from the ones who have risen up so far. Ick! Frankly our country doesn't seem to produce quality leaders right now and I don't know why that is. Time will tell on Obama. He's not one to go for the quick start out of the gate. Only time will tell how well he runs this country. And the ones who dislike him today didn't vote for him anyway.
 

Putting numbers to this (I spent most of my life as an accountant), tells me that prior to Obama taking office, there was a prisoner released from Gitmo every 4 days from 2002 to 2008. It averaged 92 per year.

Obama has now been in office 271 days and has released 17. That would equate to releasing 22 per year. At that rate, we should see Gitmo close in 10 years. The rate under Bush would have been 3 years.

The people who call Bush and Cheney Hitler will always come up with some excuse for Obama, so arguing with them is just a waste of energy.

It's the same crowd that calls anyone who disagrees with Obama's a racist. The "but by the content of their character" is the 7 words of MLK's speech that is conveniently left out of their collective memory.
 

Obama never planned to release all the prisoners in Gitmo and that was not what was proposed. I am trying to understand where that idea appeared but it's wrong. The issue was bringing them to the United States federal system. You cannot release those who are dangerous to this country and nobody has denied that some there are dangerous. The ones who get released are those who never should have been imprisoned to begin.

As for the Hitler slanders, we are seeing as much of that from the right as the left ever did with the additional suggestion that Obama should be killed. I think the potential for violence is greater and hope the Secret Service is up on it as I would not like seeing another assassination and said the same thing during the Bush years. Friedman had a good column today on the potential being equal to before Rabin was killed in Israel. That should never be encouraged no matter how much someone dislikes the other side.
 

Rani, your Hitler comment is interesting considering your close friends that leave comments on your blog have more than once called Bush and Chaney Hitler. I've never once seen you chastise them for using the that analogy.

I despise that anyone uses that term for Obama, no matter how much I disagree with nearly everything he stands for.

I don't post politics on my blog, but should anyone compare Obama to Hitler, no matter how close I am to them, I would take them to task.

You have never done so when it relates to calling someone on the right that.

You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.
 

You would have to point out to me specifically who you are talking about. (incidentally I don't have many friends who post on my blog. They are mostly just people who found it-- although I would call ingineer a friend from before blogging). I often let right wing people say what they think also unless it's threatening and the kind of thing that I will speak about in my blog or elsewhere-- invoking violence. I do believe and have said it many times that the right wing was using fascist tactics which is different than saying someone is Hitler. Fascism is a political tactic which some are saying Obama is using. It uses religion and patriotism to get political goals. I haven't seen it in Obama; but if I did, I would speak out about it.

What I said here btw was that both right and left have used that label and I don't think highly of it anywhere. Hitler was a unique person, an evil person and to call anyone a Hitler gains nothing in conversation. I read other right wing blogs though and don't comment unless I feel I am adding something to the dialogue which is usually not the case.
 

Rain: I stand corrected, but only about the commenters being close friends of yours.

After spending time finding the only time I could not keep myself from posting a comment on your blog (as I've only done it once), someone by the name of Anne referred to Chaney as Hitler. I do not know if Anne is a close friend of yours, so I apologize for making that statement.

However you did not take offense, rather continued the thread about many of the right being haters, I term which you had used previously on people like me.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22918248&postID=5944404101361253393
 

I don't remember the situation but that's typical when someone else has something that has hurt them but we often go right past it. I do not know an Anne, but am sorry if I gave the impression I think that all who are right wingers are haters. There is hate out there right now (on both sides), and you probably know that. I know very well that good people can disagree on what should be done and have right wing friends who I care for very much.

I don't really know the solution to what we are facing with the divide in this country. It seems it's impossible to discuss issues without it turning nasty. I do not believe it is helpful to call anyone a Hitler and maybe I just missed it when it went through. Fascist or even socialist, now that's fair game as those are political agendas that still are here today. Nobody is the equal of Hitler in my opinion and it doesn't help to compare anyone to him.

It's an extremely depressing time to pay attention to the news as it's not very positive no matter which side a person is on. I do still write about politics sometimes but am not thrilled with either side at the moment. I still hope for the best for our country and the world as I have grandkids, but it's worrisome to me where it's all heading.
 

I did read the comment and maybe I should have said something at the time. I am pretty down on Cheney myself but I don't see him as a Hitler although I do think... okay going to stop here. If you have read my blog, you know how I see him. I would never have hoped someone would kill him though and it sounds like you feel the same about not wanting to see violence. Americans settle these things at the ballot box and I hope that is how it continues to be.

It can be pretty frustrating to see people who hear the exact same information and interpret it so differently. I don't know a solution to it either. Sometimes I think I won't write about politics again simply because of it and then something happens and I do...

There are those from the right who comment on my blog and disagree with me. I try to not rebut them unless I have something that they have brought up that I feel I need to add. I also try to keep it to the issues as there are plenty of issues to discuss although that isn't always easy even for me. I like to see various viewpoints and ingineer usually takes care of that :)
 

Not to usurp Ingineer's blog here, but I try to never to post a comment on your blog Rain (except that one incident when I couldn't help myself). I know my opinions will never change one person's opinion, including yours.

And just when you publish a post where I can see the validity, you post one that leaves my mouth gaping and then I burst out laughing. It's obvious that most of your commenters are so rooted in their misinformation of conservatives, no amount of logic could make them see my viewpoint, so I don't bother.

And (please don't make me go through your old posts), but I'm fairly certain I've read where you call people like me, "Christianist". I'm pretty certain that was a slam against all Christians and I found it extremely insulting.

I don't insult people of other faiths and I don't know of any true Christians who do. I don't shove my religion down the throat of people of other faiths either.

I'm guessing you think the charlatans on TV are Christians. They are not. (Well, I'll make an exception for the late Billy Graham.)

Again Ingineer, sorry to overtake your post. I'm glad that Rain actually considers your views, even when it may not agree with her own or even mine.
 

I don't mind a debate here. That is what it is for. Besides you guys are the only ones reading my blog. Since it is so rare that I take the time to write anything.
 

Yeah Ing, I've noticed that. I thought you were stuck and was shocked you actually had a post again.

And Rain, I know you sometimes have differing opinions than the extreme left and I like reading blogs that differ from my view if they are intelligent and not hate filled, but I don't consider you middle left, but then I'm not middle right either.

I too find it amazing that you and I can look at the same things that are happening in America and see it as differently as black and white. But I don't consider you ignorant or uneducated.

And just so you know, those of us that are so outraged about what is happening in this country are also not ignorant or uneducated. Nor are we "teabaggers" and we are NOT racists if we disagree with Obama's policies.

We are normal hardworking Americans. There were all kinds of hateful signs of Bush when he was in office and there was not the outrage we've heard from the media like we do now.



As are the racist claims. I am tired of being called a racist because I disagree with his politics. Yes, there ARE still racists in this country, but Obama's election should prove that America has for the most part gotten over that.
 

I don't know how much Americans have gotten over racism but I read something suggesting that if it was Alan Keyes running, the right who is so upset at Obama would be thrilled; so for some it's clearly about issues-- which are good to discuss. Each time an election rolls around, there's a new chance to change things. The thing I am the happiest about Obama is on the environment which was a big issue to me and which ingineer and I have argued back and forth many times.

Be sure and see the program on PBS about the national parks. It shows the divide even then with the republicans trying to block forming the parks and the democrats trying to create more. Not too much has changed...
 

Yes Rain remember a republican made Colin Powell and Condi Rice part of their cabinet. And did not give speech after speech about what color they were. It is not about skin color with republicans, it is about performance.
The Democrats are the ones that seem stuck on color or ethnicity. Clinton said he was going to have the most diverse cabinet in history and then mostly appointed white men to top posts.
 

I might add that Obama ran on what he's doing or attempting to do. When he was elected, this is the package he suggested he wanted. I felt he was a pragmatist more than an ideologue which was fine with me but I do understand how the right feels right now about him as I experienced that for most of Bush's eight years. It's very frustrating when you see a government, even when validly elected, going the opposite of the way you believe is best or even constitutional and believe me it's what we felt about Bush. In a country like ours that is divided, and from watching the National Park series, it's obvious the division has always been, it's hard to move ahead on anything and every time you do someone feels threatened and angry.
 

I don't remotely believe you are right, ingineer about it not being about skin color with republicans anymore than democrats. Republicans are no more saintly and we see examples of it day after day. There are those who see ethnicity or religion first and it's possible that Powell got his position even as general from racial issues. They can work both ways. When the time comes that we don't see skin color but rather character, that will be a good day.
 

Ingineer . . . To keep a perspective of sorts, I enjoy reading Rain's excellent blog. Over time, when she writes about her liberal view of politics, I've noticed that you make a few comments there.

Rain is a Bush-Cheney hater of the first rank. It's surprising that she just can't get past all that and realize the damage Mr. Obama is doing to America.

There is no real description of my political leanings. You might say that I am a pragmatic conservative independent. I used to be a Conservative Republican - until the party lost it's way.

Now that the Liberal Democrats have real power, the brilliant, charismatic Mr. Obama is doing his very best to lead us right off the cliff. His mistakes and mis-direction have nothing to do with previous administrations.

Despite her obvious intelligence, Rain does not see that the damage being done before her eyes surpasses anything Bush, Cheney, Palin, McCain, Romney, Ashcroft, Clinton, or even Al Gore COMBINED did while in power.

Probably, the worst thing that President Obama has initiated is the authorization of wild and uncontrolled spending. Ultimately the resulting monster deficit will be paid by (1)printing more paper money (2)reduce the value of existing money (3) raise taxes (4) increase the size of the federal government (5) establish additional constraints on individual freedoms.

Rain unfortunately gets herself tied in knots over side issues. [Torture / Guantanamo / Palin's lack of gravitas / and so forth]. These are important but much lower on any list of priorities.

The middle eastern war(s) and the destruction of terrorism as a tactic should come first.

Eliminating deficit spending might be second.

Reducing the size and corruption in government might be third.

Guantanamo might be 150th.

Dixon
 

Good grief. How many times do I have to say that I do not hate Cheney or Bush? I do not hate anyone period. It's a waste of energy. Isn't there some ground where a person can dislike someone, disapprove of all their policies (like dismantling the Bill of Rights) and still not hate them? I don't push pins into their figures at night nor make up signs to show how they look like Hitler lol I only think about them when something comes up and I have very mixed emotions about what kind of man Bush was and is. When he didn't pardon everybody as Cheney demanded he do, he went up in my estimation.

I have always blamed the ones who supported them as much as them which is what I hope people will do with Obama.

It's way too early to blame Obama for what is going on in this country. He is doing what we Americans voted in the majority for him to do.

This all is no secret plan like the war in Iraq was for Bush-Cheney and that is evidenced in books about them discussing how would they manage the attack from the moment they got in office but was that what they ran on? Obama ran on what he is doing.

Personally I am reserving judgment on how well he will do but it's a long way from decided.

As for the debt, a lot of it was accrued for tax cuts and the Iraq war. Then under Bush was the bank bailout where they got to keep their fat payoffs with no attempt to check why they failed. That I blame on Dems and Reps. But Republicans could vote for helping the banks but not the people?

Did you disapprove of the war when you saw it wasn't being paid for? How about the tax cut that required borrowing to give to the richest among us (who are still the only ones not being hurt by this downturn or depression depending on how you see what is going on) since it had already been spent for other things? Or does a deficit just worry you when it might go to sick people?
 

As for Palin, I could write about her pretty often. Fascinating, beautiful, complex woman, but it's not her lack of gravitas that bothers me. It's the phoniness. She's not a real country woman and any country person knows it. She fools city people. Going Rogue for her book title? Is she saying she plans to become damaging to the whole country, to her people, to everybody around her? Does she understand how damaging a rogue is in the animal kingdom and to us. That was as bad as McCain's misunderstanding of what a maverick was. And I have heard she's more of a put on make-up and get her photo taken with dead game than the hunter of it.

What bothers me about her though as a president was mostly her total lack of knowledge, her double standards, her shallowness, that pose mentioned above that is fake, and her extreme right wing view that god will take care of everything-- even if it likely doesn't show up much in her personal life. I see her as totally incompetent to be president (a mayor who put her town deeply into debt and a governor of a couple of years who quit when the economy turned down) but a heck of a lot of fun to watch-- without sound-- and yet Republicans put her in a place to be president (guess who I blame for that).

Being a country woman myself, who grew up in the country and has lived in it most of my life, who works around country people all the time, I am the last person to care about or admire what someone else calls gravitas. You can see where that got our country when Cheney was picked for it and look where that led Bush who had plenty of charisma but not gravitas. Gravitas is much overvalued.

What I do want are leaders who are intelligent, do their homework, can listen to both sides of an issue, can remember and know history, and have common sense. I am reserving judgment yet about how that will be with Obama. But what he's doing so far is what he was elected to try and do-- not as easy as in the Roosevelt years to just do those things.

Even good men do bad things. In the National Parks last night it emphasized the impprisonment of west coast American Japanese during WWII and that was by a Democrat. It's not like I think either side has a lock on being bigoted or doing wrong things.

Even back then it was always the Republicans who stood against the development of those national parks. They always seemed to value the money more than anything else. Money doesn't last. Why don't people understand that? Why do they do such awful things to get more than they can ever use? Cheat, lie, ruin the environment and for what? That's what keeps me from voting for Republicans so often today. I am not sure an environmentally attuned politician could get the Republican nomination in any state but maybe Oregon. Very frustrating and yes it's hard to understand why people who are good don't see all of this the same way. But they don't.
 

I thought her book was Going Rouge. At least that is what I heard them say on TV so it must be true, right.

And the TV people make fun of Obama for needing a teleprompter.
 

that's funny but would have been a better title :) I have given up finally on MSNBC because it's nothing but politics. I switched to PBS and my blood pressure may have already gone down. I had heard it was better but it came at the wrong time for my day. Still I enjoyed hearing about the latest paleontology find a lot more than whatever whoever said anything.

Today my bp though went back up as I try to work with picasa to create a slideshow of the John Day photos. grrrrrrrrrrrrrr Neat system if you don't care in which order the photos go.........
 

Good Grief Rain . . . Don't be so sensitive. High and mighty might be another way to phrase that? You rarely if ever miss a chance to bash Bush, Cheney and Palin when you write a political blog. I could quote your own words to make the point. But I won't.

At the time of the election 53% voted for Mr. Obama and 46% for McCain. What do you suppose the division would be if everyone voted again today?

Smile and stay cool.
Thanks for the space Imagneer.
 

YOu can call me names if you like, Dixon but I will defend myself on the hate talk as have others here when they have it used on them.

As to whether Obama could beat a Republican. He still has about the same approval ratings as he had when he won. The election will go down to who his opponent is. That 53% would probably still go for Obama if the Republicans nominate someone like Cheney or Palin. Otherwise, will they nominate someone who knows what he's talking about?

McCain lost because of Palin is my opinion. The ones who say they would not have voted for him except for her sure wouldn't have then voted for Obama; so basically I think her choice made people doubt McCain's judgment, especially after all he had said about needing experience. Even today McCain makes me sometimes think he'd be a good president and sometimes that he'd go off half-cocked. When he's good, he's very very good and when he's bad, he's not the guy you want with the power of the US military at his beckon call.

Some say the Republicans wanted him to lose to not have to face what Obama is now. The chickens were coming home to roost one way or another. Whatever the reason, I think a conservative who was not a religious extremist could probably do well, but how would he/she get the nomination given the base of the Republican party. The mess we are in is so great that I don't think anybody can fix it fast if at all. Americans want something for nothing and it doesn't work that way.

My biggest concern is for the middle class. I feel the rich do fine no matter what and likewise the poor but if we don't have plans that help the middle, it's going to disappear. Given I benefited from growing up in the middle, I think that would be a terrible thing.

I do worrya bout the deficit but I have a hard time with the righties who worry about it now but didn't mind the war that they didn't even count its cost into the budget but is about $1 trillion give or take some billions. Why was that okay? To me deficit concern should have been there when the tax cuts were proposed with no cuts to compensate for the money that would be lost. Oh I know supposed to be voodoo and bring in more dollars but it didn't work that way with Reagan if you look at all of what he did and does not today. You pay for what you need and there's no lottery to cover those kind of mistakes.

On the hate, you on the right still want there to be a way of disagreeing without being accused of bigotry and I feel the same about hate.
 

Rain . . . You're most recent has raised one eyebrow. The country is indeed in a mess. The blame game doesn't seem to be very helpful. Bush didn't start the war. Many provocations led up to it.

The middle east was and is in a turmoil; the gap between rich and poor is partly to blame, the rise of radical Islam plays a part, the supply of oil is in there somewhere, and America's support and protection of Israel is a definite factor. I often ask myself two questions: 1. What might have happened if we had not toppled the Hussein government? 2. Why should we care?

As to the money. My time started with FDR and proceeded through a number of Democratic and Republican administrations. Some good and some not so good. Since FDR, our country began spending money we didn't have. The practice has grown exponentially. I believe it was during Nixon's time that America eliminated the gold standard. I think that was a huge mistake. It did, however, permit the printing of endless amounts of paper money.

Johnson's Great Society tried to extend FDR's socialized programs. That and the Viet Nam war ramped up the spending. More recent Presidents, particularly Bush Jr. ramped it up again. Drastically. This time America was deep in trouble. We had (have) an expensive war effort that has degenerated into a guerilla was that we are not capable of winning. When Saddam was toppled, his military thrashed, and his threats were finally empty, we should have declared victory and come home. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld figured they could install a benign democratic government before leaving. Wrong. It isn't going to happen. The tribal, radical, fanatical Muslim minorities from several branches of Islam - will not let that happen.

So, you are correct. Mr. Obama has a very big job to set things right. I am also correct. At least 1/2 of all Americans do not think he is CHANGING in the right direction.
 

Almost half didn't think he was the right choice during the election. The next election will revolve more around who the Republicans choose. Can they get past their base? That will determine their odds.

Many people felt Iran was the real problem and that by fighting in Iraq with no clear goal, we have used up resources that are yet to be needed with Iran. Not much good it can be now to look back but of course people do. ''

My point though was that this deficit didn't come this year. For years the cost of the Iraq war was hidden. Only now is it fully counted. If someone supported it and only now worries about deficits. If they supported a tax cut with no corresponding spending cuts, then their concern now about deficits is more partisan than real.

Personally I hope Republicans put up a real viable choice who has good understanding of foreign affairs and domestic problems. It is to our good to have viable candidates on both sides when we have an election. The American people win that way either way.
 

Personally, although I consider myself a conservative Republican, I think the country would be much better served if we could eliminate both parties and elect people who would not vote to keep their party happy, but their voters.

Rain, if you want to see a decent Republican, check out Mike Pence from Indiana.

Ingineer: Apparently you should post more often, it give some of us an outlet to discuss things intelligently rather than wade through the rhetoric.
 

Frank Rich's column today in the NY Times is very good on the corruption in Washington. I wonder now if any of them can get past it. Something is screwed up in our system... and I have told ingineer that many times. What I like about how he posts when he comments in my blog too, is he doesn't go for the panic talk but the real issues, for what is happening, not some kind of wild eyed rhetoric. It makes it possible to have a conversation.
 

Thank you for the compliments and spending some time here. Now that winter is coming hopefully I will have time to post more often. I often have something I want to say, but only take the time to do a hit and run on Rain's or some of the other blogs.
 

Ingineer . . . The Obama folks ignore history. America had endured many bloody provocations prior to the war in Iraq. Bush made a number of mistakes while in office. Hindsight is wonderful. But to say that he "increased the deficit with no end" is, compared to our more recent spending binge, a wild exageration. The jury is still out on Sara Palin, who was not a good choice at the time. She obviously needs to pay her dues and learn first. At the same time it can be said that she would have been a better president than Mr. Obama if only because she believes in America and would have protected our values and traditions. I suspect she would have LISTENED to seasoned advisors before making important decisions. Anyway, it's a moot point.

P.S. You were right about Quantanamo, now and many months ago.