I have a hard time imagining the phrases "esprit du corps" and "Saudi military" in the same sentence. But I don't know. In a real war, is the Saudi military likely to hold together much beyond the first engagement?
Saudi Arabia has $10 trillion invested in American real estate, blue chip stocks, and other financial vehicles that are easily capable of quick liquidation and withdrawal from the U.S. if effectuated.
Ummm.... How exactly would that work? Ten trillion is a helluva lot to divest. That's got to be a big, diverse portfolio -- Riyadh can simply liquidate it at the press of a button?!?! And where do they put the proceeds of the big Saudi fire sale?
This reminds me of the endless fear-mongering over U.S. debt in Chinese hands. Sure, in some sense Beijing could use it to harm American interests, but only by doing immense harm to **their own** wealth. In practical terms, it's meaningless. If things ever came to such a pass that the Chinese were actually considering such actions, there would already be such wreckage going on in the world that financial maneuvering would be worthy of a footnote, nothing more.
If you see Saudis trying wholesale liquidations of their American investments, it won't be an act of economic warfare. It'll be a desperation bid, done piecemeal by connected Saudis trying to finance their emergency exile.
Gore himself is on record admitting that if he had won HIS OWN state, Nader's candidacy would have had no effect. Further, Gore actually DID gain a majority of Florida votes.
I used to buy into Nader blame, but after watching Dem idiocy and cowardice ever since, I suspect the problem has a lot less to do with Ralph than the Donk wants to let on.
"An example of this is that when Obama or any other Democrat finally does something that the activist left agrees with, they do nothing to reward him, so he’s exposed to the full fury of a highly organized, ideological and dogmatic right-wing army"
This is the lamest, most self-serving trope served up by believing Dems, and it's one we've been hearing throughout Obama's tenure.
Poor Obama! Winner of a solid majority in '08, president of the most powerful government in human history, de facto leader of the de facto majority party of the U.S. Yet strangely paralyzed, hog-tied, unless Dems turn out in the streets en masse to give him affirmations, and tell him what to do.
In fact Obama had the core of a solid, once-in-a-generation political coalition -- and he let it dribble away within TWO YEARS. Among other things, he pissed it away with idiotic genuflections toward "bipartisanship" when everybody more sentient than a cabbage knew that Republicans were interested in nothing more than opposition for it's own sake. I mean, Republicans were saying as much in the most candid possible terms. Surely even the 11-dimensional chess master had to pick up on a little of that.
Another genius Obama tactic for squandering his coalition was **not delivering**. During his campaign he said he was going to push for "card check", to ease and encourage union organizing. You know, labor unions -- I think they're kinda sorta prominent in Dem folklore, somewhere. But once he took the oath, card check went straight down the memory hole.
Summers, Goolsbee, Clinton, Nuland, Geithner.... The self-dealing hack list goes on and on...
It's nice that Obama's finally got around to introducing some sanity in our relationship with Iran. It took him long enough, but whatever, it's a really solid accomplishment. On the other hand, do you think it's going to help some schlub in Albany make his car payment? You expect people should "reward" the Maximum Leader for something so far removed from their daily concerns?!?!
"Obama has certainly been a disappointment. He gives good speeches, yet there is usually something unfulfilling even in his good speeches."
For me the most dismaying thing has been how readily believing Dems are gulled by those speeches. I **expect** his speeches to be nothing but gas -- long before his election, when he named Biden and Clinton as his principals, you had to know that Obama was promising nothing but four years of status quo placeholding, and that's exactly what he's delivered. But whenever he churns out a pleasing phrase, all the Dems I know start swooning. It's embarrassing, even creepy.
Obama will be remembered well because he was preceded by the Bush disaster. One can truly and sincerely describe Obama as "the best president of the 21st Century" -- but in the year 2015, if that isn't damning with faint praise, I don't know what is.
I have a hard time imagining the phrases "esprit du corps" and "Saudi military" in the same sentence. But I don't know. In a real war, is the Saudi military likely to hold together much beyond the first engagement?
Saudi Arabia has $10 trillion invested in American real estate, blue chip stocks, and other financial vehicles that are easily capable of quick liquidation and withdrawal from the U.S. if effectuated.
Ummm.... How exactly would that work? Ten trillion is a helluva lot to divest. That's got to be a big, diverse portfolio -- Riyadh can simply liquidate it at the press of a button?!?! And where do they put the proceeds of the big Saudi fire sale?
This reminds me of the endless fear-mongering over U.S. debt in Chinese hands. Sure, in some sense Beijing could use it to harm American interests, but only by doing immense harm to **their own** wealth. In practical terms, it's meaningless. If things ever came to such a pass that the Chinese were actually considering such actions, there would already be such wreckage going on in the world that financial maneuvering would be worthy of a footnote, nothing more.
If you see Saudis trying wholesale liquidations of their American investments, it won't be an act of economic warfare. It'll be a desperation bid, done piecemeal by connected Saudis trying to finance their emergency exile.
Gore himself is on record admitting that if he had won HIS OWN state, Nader's candidacy would have had no effect. Further, Gore actually DID gain a majority of Florida votes.
I used to buy into Nader blame, but after watching Dem idiocy and cowardice ever since, I suspect the problem has a lot less to do with Ralph than the Donk wants to let on.
"An example of this is that when Obama or any other Democrat finally does something that the activist left agrees with, they do nothing to reward him, so he’s exposed to the full fury of a highly organized, ideological and dogmatic right-wing army"
This is the lamest, most self-serving trope served up by believing Dems, and it's one we've been hearing throughout Obama's tenure.
Poor Obama! Winner of a solid majority in '08, president of the most powerful government in human history, de facto leader of the de facto majority party of the U.S. Yet strangely paralyzed, hog-tied, unless Dems turn out in the streets en masse to give him affirmations, and tell him what to do.
In fact Obama had the core of a solid, once-in-a-generation political coalition -- and he let it dribble away within TWO YEARS. Among other things, he pissed it away with idiotic genuflections toward "bipartisanship" when everybody more sentient than a cabbage knew that Republicans were interested in nothing more than opposition for it's own sake. I mean, Republicans were saying as much in the most candid possible terms. Surely even the 11-dimensional chess master had to pick up on a little of that.
Another genius Obama tactic for squandering his coalition was **not delivering**. During his campaign he said he was going to push for "card check", to ease and encourage union organizing. You know, labor unions -- I think they're kinda sorta prominent in Dem folklore, somewhere. But once he took the oath, card check went straight down the memory hole.
Summers, Goolsbee, Clinton, Nuland, Geithner.... The self-dealing hack list goes on and on...
It's nice that Obama's finally got around to introducing some sanity in our relationship with Iran. It took him long enough, but whatever, it's a really solid accomplishment. On the other hand, do you think it's going to help some schlub in Albany make his car payment? You expect people should "reward" the Maximum Leader for something so far removed from their daily concerns?!?!
"What advanced political insight! What moral authority! Did your observation change anything."
Except that he's right.
And given the record that "realistic", "serious" believing Dems have compiled, it's a bit rich watching **them** condescend to anyone.
"Obama has certainly been a disappointment. He gives good speeches, yet there is usually something unfulfilling even in his good speeches."
For me the most dismaying thing has been how readily believing Dems are gulled by those speeches. I **expect** his speeches to be nothing but gas -- long before his election, when he named Biden and Clinton as his principals, you had to know that Obama was promising nothing but four years of status quo placeholding, and that's exactly what he's delivered. But whenever he churns out a pleasing phrase, all the Dems I know start swooning. It's embarrassing, even creepy.
Obama will be remembered well because he was preceded by the Bush disaster. One can truly and sincerely describe Obama as "the best president of the 21st Century" -- but in the year 2015, if that isn't damning with faint praise, I don't know what is.