CONGRATULATION USA

Congratulation USA - Hope and Change will come now to the whole world.
Good luck with your new President.

[Bob]

(maybe this post and response ought to be in the global forum)

Thanks.....an inspiring time. And hope for some meaningful change.
http://tcbob.smugmug.com/photos/458430904_igs8B-M.jpg

http://tcbob.smugmug.com/photos/458430905_jxDqe-M.jpg

http://tcbob.smugmug.com/photos/458430906_Tsg8d-M.jpg

http://tcbob.smugmug.com/photos/458430880_nByiy-M.jpg

http://tcbob.smugmug.com/photos/458430872_qT2mQ-M.jpg

[Khor tose]

I think after eight horrible years that we got it right this time. As an aside, Dick Chaney hurt his back and was in a wheelchair at the ceremony. Talk about Dr Strangelove, all he needed was a monocle.

I think after eight horrible years that we got it right this time.Everything we need - a coke-snorting bisexual. Way to go!

Thanks GD it is indeed a HAPPY day here in all of the world. Unfortunatetly I was in transit for the event and I can't wait to watch it but of course my UTube downloads/views are going quite horribly as is usual here. I find it hard to believe that he is only the most lowly rated in recent US history I would think that a record to have been tough for even Calvin Coolidge or any other past pres. to have beat. As I gloat over all the wonderful coverage from everywhere this morning I note that even in my "favorite" UK journal, I sometimes find things that "we both agree on" ...


Obama inauguration: We will remake America, vows President Obama
America's first black president promises to roll back Bush years and restore nation's moral standing
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 20 January 2009 20.16 GMT

Barack Hussein Obama, the US president, ushered in a new era of Democratic rule today with a promise to begin rolling back the Bush years and restore the nation's moral standing in the world.

The 44th president, speaking in front of the biggest inauguration crowd in US history, said: "Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America."

An estimated 2 million people, wrapped up against the winter cold, many of them in place since dawn, filled the Mall to see Obama sworn in as America's first black president. A big proportion of the crowd was African-American, many having travelled from across the continent to witness the historic moment.

Large numbers also took the opportunity to celebrate the departure of George Bush, who leaves office with some of the lowest popularity ratings in recent US history. He was jeered as he emerged from the Capitol building for the inauguration ceremony, with a derisive chant of "Na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye." There were more cheers as a helicopter carrying him to retirement took off from Capitol Hill an hour later.

Obama's speech was frequently inspirational, though he failed to find a phrase that is likely to resound down the generations, as Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy did with their inaugural speeches.

Much of the new president's oratory turned into an indictment of his predecessor. Obama focused on George Bush's abandoning of basic legal and human rights after the 9/11 attacks, rejecting as false the former president's choice between security and American ideals. One of Obama's first acts will be to order the closure of the Guant├бnamo detention centre.

Heralding his new administration as ushering in "an era of responsibility", he set out a New Deal-style programme to tackle the recession by building roads and bridges, electric grids and "digital lines".

His administration would also confront the country's failed education and health systems, restore science to its rightful place, and make environmental concerns a priority.

In a passage that produced one of the biggest cheers of the day, he promised to engage with the world in a way that Bush had failed to. He had a message for people and governments around the world watching the inauguration: "We are ready to lead once more."

He specifically mentioned reaching out to the Muslim world.

Hinting at his willingness to engage with countries such as Iran and Syria, though he did not name them, he said: "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

Obama, the son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, throughout the election campaign tried to avoid making too much of the fact that he would become the first African-American president. But he could not disappoint those who had been born in the days of segregation and had travelled long distances to be present today.

Knowing it was a special moment for those and other black Americans, he said that what American liberty meant was that "a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath."

Obama began the day with a visit to St John's church, across the square from the White House and the traditional venue for presidents, before heading for coffee with the Bushes.

The outgoing vice-president, Dick Cheney, did not turn up at the door to join in the greeting. He is in a wheelchair, apparently because he injured his back while removing boxes.

Obama and Bush then left to travel in an armoured car to the Capitol for the inauguration ceremony.

Joe Biden was first sworn in as vice-president. After a brief glitch in oath-taking, Obama was sworn in at 12.05pm, with the new first lady, Michelle, holding the Bible, the same one used for the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln.

Security in the capital was much higher than for Bush's inauguration four years ago. There were 28,000 security service agents, police and US national guard members on duty, about 50% more than last time.

As soon as the inauguration ceremony was over, vans and buses began ferrying Obama's team to the White House to begin work.

[Wesley]

only two words isolationism, protectionism. he may be good for the USA. But I doub't he is going to save the world. The Filipino's are already crying, jobs coming back home already.

Wes

[elephantspike]

This is a great day for America.

We've had a lot of really shitty days lately, too.

We need this day!

Perhaps if the Filipinos spent more time crying over the rampant corruption and cronyism in their own country and less time worry about how they were going to get to the promised land, the sad fact that the only major export they have been able to achieve since their independence is their own people.

Wesley, I see that you have branched out from religious dogma and are now prognosticating on the economic policies of the new Obama administration. Clearly, if you had spent anytime looking at the economic team that Obama has put together, you would realize that the USA becoming and inward looking protectionist country are unlikely in the extreme. I should think that you leave the heavy thinking to the big boys and go back to what you excel at, whoring around Manila. At least when you post on that subject your information appears to be useful those like minded.

Clearly, if you had spent anytime looking at the economic team that Obama has put together, you would realize that the USA becoming and inward looking protectionist country are unlikely in the extreme.

Really?

So all those who think this is highly likely (which includes those from the Wall Street Journal to Bloomberg, from ABC to The Economist) are wrong and the Patriot Employer Act he co-sponsored is designed to make America less protectionist?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 414210.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/08/2414210.htm)
http://www.useconomy.about.com/b/2008/0 ... orkers.htm (http://www.useconomy.about.com/b/2008/02/20/clinton-and-obamas-protectionism-wont-help-us-workers.htm)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexch ... tionis.cfm (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2008/02/obama_a_dangerous_protectionis.cfm)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=asia (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aDt4u9Q4AAEA&refer=asia)

After Bush virtually anyone would be welcome, but I fear the reality is that if he achieves a fraction of what is expected of him nationally and internationally that will be a miracle.

GF.....perhaps you should go read the articles you quote....their evidence is slim to non-existent. And in fact the Economist article actually defends Obama for the most part. And as for the Patriot Employer Act it is quite a stretch to call it protectionist.

[Wesley]

Perhaps if the Filipinos spent more time crying over the rampant corruption and cronyism in their own country and less time worry about how they were going to get to the promised land, the sad fact that the only major export they have been able to achieve since their independence is their own people.

Wesley, I see that you have branched out from religious dogma and are now prognosticating on the economic policies of the new Obama administration. Clearly, if you had spent anytime looking at the economic team that Obama has put together, you would realize that the USA becoming and inward looking protectionist country are unlikely in the extreme. I should think that you leave the heavy thinking to the big boys and go back to what you excel at, whoring around Manila. At least when you post on that subject your information appears to be useful those like minded.


I would assume my whoring around Manila, does not cut me off from the rest of the world or economics, or imply I think with two heads is ludicrous. My dick has nothing to do with my ability to collect and assimilate information. I clearly am not the only one that feels this way, nor do I find myself in need to defend the FilipinoтАЩs corruption which runs from Russia all the way to SE Asia and to put the Filipinos in the collective bucket of those in that category is not likely to make me stop thinking. Things are not good here or in America, and I personally do feel that we need and should accept all the Obama policies. I support him as much and more than Clinton. However, I feel that to simply put him in charge of the rest of the world is quite a big job for one man in one country in times like this. I highly recommend we come back to the world stage with more to say than F---K you. If you want to make a dig about my life style then take a close look at who you live around yourself, although I donтАЩt keep up with your posts allot I can reasonably assume if you spend much time on this forum you do as much whoring around as I do when possible. The fact that I can do it more often does not say I am stupid only that I am enjoying life in its fullest. The conclusion that I am not capable of thinking for myself is as stupid as your accusation of obviously calling me a whore when you are likely as guilty as I am, if given the same opportunities. I personally take that statement as offensive. Although I have, thick skin, this does not mean I do not have feelings. I take enough shit off people here without the others calling the kettle black when they altough they may be monogamous now I am sure they were not always that way. You have to look around to find a good lover and I have spent more of my life in a relationship than out. To imply I am a whore of any sort makes me less than you, then I think you need a close look at your own ego. Obviously, you are a self-righteous pitiful excuse of human shit.

Therefore, if you want to get in the gutter with me I would suggest you get the dame pole out of your own eye before you complain about the splinter in mine.

Wes

GF.....perhaps you should go read the articles you quote....their evidence is slim to non-existent. And in fact the Economist article actually defends Obama for the most part. And as for the Patriot Employer Act it is quite a stretch to call it protectionist.

I did.

You, apparently, did not read what I wrote or if you did you failed to understand it. I never said Obama was wrong for being protectionist (he is, after all, President of the USA not the world), simply that you were wrong for implying that the subject was beyond Wesley and that he should "leave the heavy thinking to the big boys" - whether you agree with them or not, and whatever you think of their evidence, I think it is fair to say that Bloomberg, the Economist, etc are among "the big boys".

As for the Patriot Employer Act not being protectionist, it is difficult to know what else to call it when it includes the following as the main conditions for receiving a tax credit of 1% of taxable income:

1. The company must "maintain its headquarters in the United States if the taxpayer has ever been headquartered in the United States".

2. If the company employs at least 50 employees on average during the taxable year, it must "maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in the United States relative to the number of full-time workers outside of the United States".

Perhaps you should have done some reading yourself .....

[Wesley]

I had a long post in reply to your gutter remarks then decided you aren't worth my time. Your really just another troll. Good tme to put you on ignore.

Wes

Wesley...calm your gay nerves. I simply put a name to what you do. Any value judgment was yours and not mine. As a strong proponent of free trade I whole heartedly endorse any willing commercial activity between individuals. I do however find it hypocritical of you to be offended at being called a whore when you so frequently and avidly write about your exploits. Perhaps this is what you were reffering to when you recently posted on the "Purpose Driven Life" although I suspect the good Reverend Warren did not actually have this in mind.

I never claimed you thought with 2 heads and merely suggested you do not think you sufficiently with the one you have and make all sorts of claims with out much or any basis in fact.

You claim Obama will be isolationist and protectionist but offer nothing to back this up and now go on to say you support him completely. So you are in favor of the US becoming isolationist and protectionist. One does not get that impression from your first post.

And correct me if I am wrong here but wasn't Obama elected as president of the United States? Clearly he has no mandate to "save the world" and has made no claims to do so. I believe he has promised to work together with other like minded nations to improve the world situation. I merely pointed out that the Filipinos were being unrealistic to think it was up to the USA to save them when most of their problems stem from their inability to govern themselves effectively.

But alas you have once again claimed to put me on ignore, a threat you seem unable or unwilling to go through with.

GF I read all your links quite thoroughly and couldn't find the smoking gun you so clearly think is there.

On the abc.net.au link the article states that the Australian opposition leader is was worried about "possible" protectionist policies but then fails to spell out just what these are supposed to be.

In the useconomy.about link the only specific information regarding Obama's policies is this: "Senator Obama blames "politicians in Washington" for signing trade agreements that he says are bad for the economy because they provide perks for businesses but don't protect workers." Where exactly are the protectionist policies here?

In the economist.com link ( A magazine which by the way endorsed Obama for President) it says the following: "This bill is bad, but it's not dangerous. It's far less offensive than many of the anti-trade, anti-immigration proposals seen elsewhere in the campaign. Politicians are practically required to say silly and outrageous things. Economists shouldn't volunteer to do so." It also states about the PEA: "This bill is much less bad than it could be, primarily because the restrictions it contains are optional. The things it asks of employers are steps that firms would have already taken if they were likely to boost productivity,"

And in the bloomberg link it only talks of Asian fears that "Obama's calls for tougher labor and environmental rules and steps to reduce the U.S. trade deficit sound like thinly veiled protectionism". Again no specifics.

Basically all sizzle and no steak.

I did in fact read the Patriot Employer Act in it's entirety. Where you state that employers MUST do this or that you fail to mention that these requirements are if, and only if, they want to avail themselves of a 1% tax credit. Conveniently you fail to mention that adherence to the act is completely optional. And not surprisingly there is at least one site that defends the act.

In Defense of the Patriot Employer Act (http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/02/26/in-defense-of-the-patriot-employer-act)

No where in these articles does it state that any of those you quote think it "highly likely" that Obama will pursue protectionist and isolationist policies. It's just not there.

[Wesley]

No I clearly said that the ignore button is the last option I will ever use, you are the only one, including homi I thought I could live without thier input into my life. It does not mean I don't appreciate your most astute observations, just that to call me a whore when you hang around with them is a bit hypocritical as I am when I identify with the Purpose driven life. I do believe that to be effectual in whatever you do, be it whoring around or, doing good for those less fortunate than you it is important to do it with a whole heart and responsibly. I live a life style that most would be jealous of. I can both do well and still enjoy life while I am focused on both. It does not mean I am a hypocrite, it was a well-written book and is not only applicable in a Christian point of view but in any life where you have a purpose for life. My purpose is to live my life to the fullest while yet doing as much good as I can on the way though. I clearly identify my intent to be who I am and to do all I can to help the suffering and hurting of the world. Although, I know I cannot fix everyone or everyoneтАЩs life. I can do what I can to honestly do the most good I can and enjoy life on the way though. If I believe as I do, that this is the only chance I have at life. Then I want to live every moment as if it were my last. if I have the ability to make others lives better as well, then as well I have a purpose that adds to the satisfaction of knowing I have done all I can one the way to though life and then dust to dust.

I fear that many are simply jealous that they cannot balance the good and bad side of themselves and both have a purpose in life and live life to the fullest possible existence I can afford. If this is Hypocritical then surely I am hypocrite. Honestly, I think I can do both. It takes courage and determination to both love life and protect those that cannot help themselves at the same time. If that makes you or any one jealous that, I can both enjoy life and have a purpose in my life, then I am sorry. I can do both. I can live life as if it is my last chance to live and still help with a purpose those that are less fortunate than I am. If you can equalize those two facts, then what is it is saying about your intellectual prowess in as as much as you conclude how ignorant I am. I have the ability to love life and the people around me with purpose and adding meaning to my life on the way though. If this seems hypocritical then you are much less an intellectual than you ever claim to be. Life is a road you can take more than one path and get to the same place. If I can love me others and more than one person at a time does that make me a whore. If I can believe in things, you cannot then does that make me less than your or anyone... If anything the left has propagated, it has been free speech, the first amendment to believe whatever you like in pursuit of life and liberty and the pursuit of happinessfor all. If you can state such eloquent words and still not believe them to be true then you are no American, nor are you a patriot. You are shallow and lacking integrity. I admit who I am, what I do and am not ashamed of criticism of my life style as well as who I am. Would that you were so brave.

All the best.

Wes

[Davey612]

Now, back to the topic. Protectionism? No. As Once in a While said, it is a tax credit. Companies will do what is best, which is their bottom line. However, it is time to change the model of the U.S. being the consumer and most of the rest of the world being the producers. We all have to balance our accounts. What we have done here in the U.S. lately is just to spend beyond our means. That means we have to go through a period of consuming less and exporting more. The days of relying on Wall Street and Boeing as the main exporters is in the past.

So, in the spirt of quoting, here is a link to an article from my local paper: Consume less, export more (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/MNTO15F8SM.DTL&tsp=1)

[Wesley]

Now, back to the topic. Protectionism? No. As Once in a While said, it is a tax credit. Companies will do what is best, which is their bottom line. However, it is time to change the model of the U.S. being the consumer and most of the rest of the world being the producers. We all have to balance our accounts. What we have done here in the U.S. lately is just to spend beyond our means. That means we have to go through a period of consuming less and exporting more. The days of relying on Wall Street and Boeing as the main exporters is in the past.

So, in the spirt of quoting, here is a link to an article from my local paper: Consume less, export more (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/MNTO15F8SM.DTL&tsp=1)

I could not agree with you more. its going to take a delicate balencing act though. Obama can't do it alone. He is a Man no God. If American has ever pulled together and forget politics now is the time to do it. The left and the right needs to come to the center and simply work together

Wes

GF I read all your links quite thoroughly .....

Maybe because you don't read very thoroughly and you mis-represent what you read - had you read my post properly, for example, you would have seen that I did NOT "state that employers MUST do this" and I did NOT "fail to mention that these requirements are if, and only if, they want to avail themselves of a 1% tax credit" (I clearly wrote "it includes the following as the main conditions for receiving a tax credit of 1% of taxable income").

I am not at all surprised that "there is at least one site that defends the act". It is possible to find a site on the internet to defend virtually any view or hypothesis (although Brandumb is an exception!); I actually read the one you referenced before making my initial posting on this thread and had I wanted to quote one part of it and "fail to mention" others, as you say I do, I could have highlighted their comment that the proposed act was "hardly at the top of any sensible economist's wish-list" - that would have been pointless and irrelevant, however, as my point was NOT whether it was right or wrong, good for America (or the world) or not, but that your criticism of Wesley was wrong as the "big boys" you thought he should leave the thinking to agreed with him.

It all seems beyond you.

Clearly it is you who has read into your links views, conclusions and the like which are just not there as I have already pointed out. But never mind, you are always right and the everyone else is always wrong. Now back to you for the inevitable last word.

Wes...late me make this as clear as I can. You write extensively on your exploits of availing yourself of paid sex... the very definition of whoring and then get all bent out of shape for being called a whore. That is hypocrisy. And as I already said the value judgment (on being called a whore) was yours not mine. If you have a problem with being called a whore then don't be one. Frankly I couldn't care less whether you are one or not.

[Wesley]

Wes...late me make this as clear as I can. You write extensively on your exploits of availing yourself of paid sex... the very definition of whoring and then get all bent out of shape for being called a whore. That is hypocrisy. And as I already said the value judgment (on being called a whore) was yours not mine. If you have a problem with being called a whore then don't be one. Frankly I couldn't care less whether you are one or not.

Fuck You and the horse you road in one you piece of shit. As if you never have is hypocritical is my point ass hole.

Wes

[Wesley]

Cool this ignore thing is better than I thought, all 8 posts gone forever what a trick.


Wes

Such a potty mouth Wesley....I'm really not feeling the love here. LOL

[Wesley]

Its like I never knew you, I am finally beginning to understand Homi and his iggy button, click and you no longer exist. How sweet it is, Guess you will have to use your real name to post now asshole.

Wesley one does wonder if you grasp the concept of ignoring. You put me on ignore, I post a reply and you promptly respond. You clearly are as thick as shit.

[Wesley]

now I know why I hate ignore, I know you have said something about me or GF one, but have no idea what. SO now its a new game, curiosity killed the cat. is there a way to do it so that you don't know the asshole has said anything at all?

Wes

Apparently you need a little help here

ig┬╖nore
Pronunciation: \ig-╦Иn╚пr\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
ig┬╖nored; ig┬╖nor┬╖ing
Etymology:
obsolete ignore to be ignorant of, from French ignorer, from Latin ignorare, from ignarus ignorant, unknown, from in- + gnoscere, noscere to know тАФ more at know
Date:
1801

1 : to refuse to take notice of
2 : to reject (a bill of indictment) as ungrounded

[DamienZ]

Thanks. Most of us here are quietly optimistic about the whole affair. :sunny:

[Wesley]

I remember one of Homi retorts concerning my posts, You don't need to read what he has said to still him up. looks like Once in a While fits well into that rather dense category.
Wes

Let me get this straight... I am the dense one because you put me on ignore and then still can't stop responding to my posts. It's easier to wind you up than clock. Now back to you.