Effect of the election on the housing market

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

As Louis XIV, believing France to be at the absolute height of her power, famously uttered, “L’Etat c’est Moi”. The Ancien Regime is passing, Brian, can you feel it?[/quote]

For Halloween, did you dress up as Marie Antoinette holding a cake?

I had a Catholic education and I know my European history quite well. 😉

Louis XIV was quite right to proclaim l’etat c’est moi. He was still young king and was about to build France into the most powerful state in the Western world.

Louis XV’s reign was a period of royal indulgence and pleasure. Louis XVI helped the American revolution but was unable to hold on to his crown.[/quote]

Brian: I won’t delve into your Catholic education, save to say you’re obviously an intelligent person, and I would expect that having such an education would at least give you a sense of acceptance when it came to Christians of other denominations. I don’t hold with the beliefs of most evangelicals, since I believe that their theology is based on an incorrect interpretation of the bible, but I don’t think that they’re all inbred rednecks, either. Catholicism is generally pretty accepting, as a rule (Concho’s stab at the Spanish Inquisition notwithstanding), and I’d expect someone who claims to be open-minded, tolerant and who “loves his fellow man” to fall into this category.

As far as your grasp of French history, specifically the rule of the Bourbons, goes: Do you see any parallels in America’s present? Ruinously expensive foreign wars, sclerotic rulers and politicians, a devalued currency; the list goes on and on. Whether you’re willing to admit that the Dems belong to the group, we’re ruled by a venal, self-serving professional political class, which is as out of touch with the populace as the Bourbons were (and we all know how that turned out). Mock the Tea Partiers all you want, but they’re the vanguard of a popular movement. While I’m not a member, its nice to see that Americans are still capable of getting roused and getting angry.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1]

I had a Catholic education and I know my European history quite well. 😉

[/quote]

I’m sorry…Does that explain your views and rebelliousness? 🙂

Seriously though, don’t sweat it… We’ll see tomorrow what how the country really feels about things, one way or the other. Personally, I’m not hoping for an extreme government one way or another. So I hope the polls aren’t as bad as MSM is making them out to be.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1]

I had a Catholic education and I know my European history quite well. 😉

[/quote]

I’m sorry…Does that explain your views and rebelliousness? 🙂

Seriously though, don’t sweat it… We’ll see tomorrow what how the country really feels about things, one way or the other. Personally, I’m not hoping for an extreme government one way or another. So I hope the polls aren’t as bad as MSM is making them out to be.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1]

I had a Catholic education and I know my European history quite well. 😉

[/quote]

I’m sorry…Does that explain your views and rebelliousness? 🙂

Seriously though, don’t sweat it… We’ll see tomorrow what how the country really feels about things, one way or the other. Personally, I’m not hoping for an extreme government one way or another. So I hope the polls aren’t as bad as MSM is making them out to be.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1]

I had a Catholic education and I know my European history quite well. 😉

[/quote]

I’m sorry…Does that explain your views and rebelliousness? 🙂

Seriously though, don’t sweat it… We’ll see tomorrow what how the country really feels about things, one way or the other. Personally, I’m not hoping for an extreme government one way or another. So I hope the polls aren’t as bad as MSM is making them out to be.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1]

I had a Catholic education and I know my European history quite well. 😉

[/quote]

I’m sorry…Does that explain your views and rebelliousness? 🙂

Seriously though, don’t sweat it… We’ll see tomorrow what how the country really feels about things, one way or the other. Personally, I’m not hoping for an extreme government one way or another. So I hope the polls aren’t as bad as MSM is making them out to be.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Obama had no choice but to continue the Bush’s foreign policies for many reasons.

1) After strong-arming the world into supporting the wars, a turnabout by the United States would weaken our influence abroad. We have to change policies without admitting to failure. And we have to create an appearance of success while changing course. Obama needs to show the world that he’s a tough leader read to use American military might.

2) Domestically Obama cannot appear to be weak on defense and weak on terrorism. Here he’s making a pragmatic political choice which corresponds to 1) above.

3) On Gitmo and Patriot acts, no president who has certain powers wants to give them up. In my opinion, it’s Congress’ job to restrain the power of the presidency.

4) The general attitude of the American public, right now is that the wars and civil liberties are out of sight, out of mind (unlike during Vietnam when the draft was creating social unrest).
Jobs are most important. It seems like Obama made the pragmatic choice not to rock the boat on foreign policy, while working on the domestic and economic agenda.

Obama is constrained on many fronts. It’s good that he’s a cool, cerebral president in this tumultuous period in our history.[/quote]

Zk: Fair enough, and here goes:

1) We did not strong-arm the world into those wars, and the European response to the invasion of Iraq will bear that point out, specifically the response of France and Germany. As to NATO/ISAF support in Afghanistan, the Europeans weren’t strong-armed into this, either, and it was their decision that al-Qaeda and the Taliban did pose a threat that needed to be addressed in Afghanistan. I would further point to Obama’s speech in Cairo as the most damning piece of evidence that Obama was seeking a clear break with Bush’s adventurism and was seeking an entente with the Arab world and one where America was clearly engaged in a new course of action.

2) Spending on Defense and the War on Terror are two very different things. While I don’t have the exact percentages, I would opine that spending on anti- and counter-terror operations is a very small percentage of the US Defense package and most of those dollars are going to support the costs of a large blue-water Navy, as well as new Air Force and Army programs. This is not a pragmatic choice at all, just refer to Defense Secretary Gates’ continued agitation for the elimination of costly and unnecessary systems and programs from the Defense budget. The pragmatic choice would be for Obama to go after that budget with an axe.

3) Obama campaigned on Gitmo and Patriot I/II. He was emphatic about the closure of Gitmo and the unwinding of both Patriot Acts. Now that he’s in the Oval Office, Brian is asking us to believe that he’s so enamored with his newfound power(s), that he’s refusing to relinquish them. That doesn’t sound like pragmatism at all, in fact, it sounds like the charges leveled by the Dems against Bush and Co. for trying to expand the powers of the Executive branch beyond reason.

4) Obama, if memory serves, was a professor of Constitutional Law. Unlike the Civil War, when Lincoln instituted martial law and suspended habeas corpus, we’re not confronting a similar threat to the Union. The facts are these: Obama has NOT closed Gitmo. He has NOT unwound Patriot I/II. He IS continuing the practice of extraordinary rendition, as well as overseeing the expansion of drone strikes, intelligence gathering operations in the AfPak region (over the protests of the Pakistani government), and he has considerably increased the troop footprint in Afghanistan. His own withdrawal schedule is unlikely to be met, if you listen to Joe Gibbs, so Brian cannot argue that Obama is serious about that withdrawal, which, based on the continued poor prosection of that war, is now farcical.

As far as Obama working on the “domestic and economic agenda”: This is exactly why he is in for the drubbing he’ll likely get tomorrow. Suffice it to say, jobs were not a high priority, or not as high a priority as passing healthcare. I’m not debating the efficacy or failure of Obamacare, simply saying that Obama didn’t turn his attention to jobs (and then only peripherally) until it was literally too late.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Obama had no choice but to continue the Bush’s foreign policies for many reasons.

1) After strong-arming the world into supporting the wars, a turnabout by the United States would weaken our influence abroad. We have to change policies without admitting to failure. And we have to create an appearance of success while changing course. Obama needs to show the world that he’s a tough leader read to use American military might.

2) Domestically Obama cannot appear to be weak on defense and weak on terrorism. Here he’s making a pragmatic political choice which corresponds to 1) above.

3) On Gitmo and Patriot acts, no president who has certain powers wants to give them up. In my opinion, it’s Congress’ job to restrain the power of the presidency.

4) The general attitude of the American public, right now is that the wars and civil liberties are out of sight, out of mind (unlike during Vietnam when the draft was creating social unrest).
Jobs are most important. It seems like Obama made the pragmatic choice not to rock the boat on foreign policy, while working on the domestic and economic agenda.

Obama is constrained on many fronts. It’s good that he’s a cool, cerebral president in this tumultuous period in our history.[/quote]

Zk: Fair enough, and here goes:

1) We did not strong-arm the world into those wars, and the European response to the invasion of Iraq will bear that point out, specifically the response of France and Germany. As to NATO/ISAF support in Afghanistan, the Europeans weren’t strong-armed into this, either, and it was their decision that al-Qaeda and the Taliban did pose a threat that needed to be addressed in Afghanistan. I would further point to Obama’s speech in Cairo as the most damning piece of evidence that Obama was seeking a clear break with Bush’s adventurism and was seeking an entente with the Arab world and one where America was clearly engaged in a new course of action.

2) Spending on Defense and the War on Terror are two very different things. While I don’t have the exact percentages, I would opine that spending on anti- and counter-terror operations is a very small percentage of the US Defense package and most of those dollars are going to support the costs of a large blue-water Navy, as well as new Air Force and Army programs. This is not a pragmatic choice at all, just refer to Defense Secretary Gates’ continued agitation for the elimination of costly and unnecessary systems and programs from the Defense budget. The pragmatic choice would be for Obama to go after that budget with an axe.

3) Obama campaigned on Gitmo and Patriot I/II. He was emphatic about the closure of Gitmo and the unwinding of both Patriot Acts. Now that he’s in the Oval Office, Brian is asking us to believe that he’s so enamored with his newfound power(s), that he’s refusing to relinquish them. That doesn’t sound like pragmatism at all, in fact, it sounds like the charges leveled by the Dems against Bush and Co. for trying to expand the powers of the Executive branch beyond reason.

4) Obama, if memory serves, was a professor of Constitutional Law. Unlike the Civil War, when Lincoln instituted martial law and suspended habeas corpus, we’re not confronting a similar threat to the Union. The facts are these: Obama has NOT closed Gitmo. He has NOT unwound Patriot I/II. He IS continuing the practice of extraordinary rendition, as well as overseeing the expansion of drone strikes, intelligence gathering operations in the AfPak region (over the protests of the Pakistani government), and he has considerably increased the troop footprint in Afghanistan. His own withdrawal schedule is unlikely to be met, if you listen to Joe Gibbs, so Brian cannot argue that Obama is serious about that withdrawal, which, based on the continued poor prosection of that war, is now farcical.

As far as Obama working on the “domestic and economic agenda”: This is exactly why he is in for the drubbing he’ll likely get tomorrow. Suffice it to say, jobs were not a high priority, or not as high a priority as passing healthcare. I’m not debating the efficacy or failure of Obamacare, simply saying that Obama didn’t turn his attention to jobs (and then only peripherally) until it was literally too late.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Obama had no choice but to continue the Bush’s foreign policies for many reasons.

1) After strong-arming the world into supporting the wars, a turnabout by the United States would weaken our influence abroad. We have to change policies without admitting to failure. And we have to create an appearance of success while changing course. Obama needs to show the world that he’s a tough leader read to use American military might.

2) Domestically Obama cannot appear to be weak on defense and weak on terrorism. Here he’s making a pragmatic political choice which corresponds to 1) above.

3) On Gitmo and Patriot acts, no president who has certain powers wants to give them up. In my opinion, it’s Congress’ job to restrain the power of the presidency.

4) The general attitude of the American public, right now is that the wars and civil liberties are out of sight, out of mind (unlike during Vietnam when the draft was creating social unrest).
Jobs are most important. It seems like Obama made the pragmatic choice not to rock the boat on foreign policy, while working on the domestic and economic agenda.

Obama is constrained on many fronts. It’s good that he’s a cool, cerebral president in this tumultuous period in our history.[/quote]

Zk: Fair enough, and here goes:

1) We did not strong-arm the world into those wars, and the European response to the invasion of Iraq will bear that point out, specifically the response of France and Germany. As to NATO/ISAF support in Afghanistan, the Europeans weren’t strong-armed into this, either, and it was their decision that al-Qaeda and the Taliban did pose a threat that needed to be addressed in Afghanistan. I would further point to Obama’s speech in Cairo as the most damning piece of evidence that Obama was seeking a clear break with Bush’s adventurism and was seeking an entente with the Arab world and one where America was clearly engaged in a new course of action.

2) Spending on Defense and the War on Terror are two very different things. While I don’t have the exact percentages, I would opine that spending on anti- and counter-terror operations is a very small percentage of the US Defense package and most of those dollars are going to support the costs of a large blue-water Navy, as well as new Air Force and Army programs. This is not a pragmatic choice at all, just refer to Defense Secretary Gates’ continued agitation for the elimination of costly and unnecessary systems and programs from the Defense budget. The pragmatic choice would be for Obama to go after that budget with an axe.

3) Obama campaigned on Gitmo and Patriot I/II. He was emphatic about the closure of Gitmo and the unwinding of both Patriot Acts. Now that he’s in the Oval Office, Brian is asking us to believe that he’s so enamored with his newfound power(s), that he’s refusing to relinquish them. That doesn’t sound like pragmatism at all, in fact, it sounds like the charges leveled by the Dems against Bush and Co. for trying to expand the powers of the Executive branch beyond reason.

4) Obama, if memory serves, was a professor of Constitutional Law. Unlike the Civil War, when Lincoln instituted martial law and suspended habeas corpus, we’re not confronting a similar threat to the Union. The facts are these: Obama has NOT closed Gitmo. He has NOT unwound Patriot I/II. He IS continuing the practice of extraordinary rendition, as well as overseeing the expansion of drone strikes, intelligence gathering operations in the AfPak region (over the protests of the Pakistani government), and he has considerably increased the troop footprint in Afghanistan. His own withdrawal schedule is unlikely to be met, if you listen to Joe Gibbs, so Brian cannot argue that Obama is serious about that withdrawal, which, based on the continued poor prosection of that war, is now farcical.

As far as Obama working on the “domestic and economic agenda”: This is exactly why he is in for the drubbing he’ll likely get tomorrow. Suffice it to say, jobs were not a high priority, or not as high a priority as passing healthcare. I’m not debating the efficacy or failure of Obamacare, simply saying that Obama didn’t turn his attention to jobs (and then only peripherally) until it was literally too late.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Obama had no choice but to continue the Bush’s foreign policies for many reasons.

1) After strong-arming the world into supporting the wars, a turnabout by the United States would weaken our influence abroad. We have to change policies without admitting to failure. And we have to create an appearance of success while changing course. Obama needs to show the world that he’s a tough leader read to use American military might.

2) Domestically Obama cannot appear to be weak on defense and weak on terrorism. Here he’s making a pragmatic political choice which corresponds to 1) above.

3) On Gitmo and Patriot acts, no president who has certain powers wants to give them up. In my opinion, it’s Congress’ job to restrain the power of the presidency.

4) The general attitude of the American public, right now is that the wars and civil liberties are out of sight, out of mind (unlike during Vietnam when the draft was creating social unrest).
Jobs are most important. It seems like Obama made the pragmatic choice not to rock the boat on foreign policy, while working on the domestic and economic agenda.

Obama is constrained on many fronts. It’s good that he’s a cool, cerebral president in this tumultuous period in our history.[/quote]

Zk: Fair enough, and here goes:

1) We did not strong-arm the world into those wars, and the European response to the invasion of Iraq will bear that point out, specifically the response of France and Germany. As to NATO/ISAF support in Afghanistan, the Europeans weren’t strong-armed into this, either, and it was their decision that al-Qaeda and the Taliban did pose a threat that needed to be addressed in Afghanistan. I would further point to Obama’s speech in Cairo as the most damning piece of evidence that Obama was seeking a clear break with Bush’s adventurism and was seeking an entente with the Arab world and one where America was clearly engaged in a new course of action.

2) Spending on Defense and the War on Terror are two very different things. While I don’t have the exact percentages, I would opine that spending on anti- and counter-terror operations is a very small percentage of the US Defense package and most of those dollars are going to support the costs of a large blue-water Navy, as well as new Air Force and Army programs. This is not a pragmatic choice at all, just refer to Defense Secretary Gates’ continued agitation for the elimination of costly and unnecessary systems and programs from the Defense budget. The pragmatic choice would be for Obama to go after that budget with an axe.

3) Obama campaigned on Gitmo and Patriot I/II. He was emphatic about the closure of Gitmo and the unwinding of both Patriot Acts. Now that he’s in the Oval Office, Brian is asking us to believe that he’s so enamored with his newfound power(s), that he’s refusing to relinquish them. That doesn’t sound like pragmatism at all, in fact, it sounds like the charges leveled by the Dems against Bush and Co. for trying to expand the powers of the Executive branch beyond reason.

4) Obama, if memory serves, was a professor of Constitutional Law. Unlike the Civil War, when Lincoln instituted martial law and suspended habeas corpus, we’re not confronting a similar threat to the Union. The facts are these: Obama has NOT closed Gitmo. He has NOT unwound Patriot I/II. He IS continuing the practice of extraordinary rendition, as well as overseeing the expansion of drone strikes, intelligence gathering operations in the AfPak region (over the protests of the Pakistani government), and he has considerably increased the troop footprint in Afghanistan. His own withdrawal schedule is unlikely to be met, if you listen to Joe Gibbs, so Brian cannot argue that Obama is serious about that withdrawal, which, based on the continued poor prosection of that war, is now farcical.

As far as Obama working on the “domestic and economic agenda”: This is exactly why he is in for the drubbing he’ll likely get tomorrow. Suffice it to say, jobs were not a high priority, or not as high a priority as passing healthcare. I’m not debating the efficacy or failure of Obamacare, simply saying that Obama didn’t turn his attention to jobs (and then only peripherally) until it was literally too late.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Obama had no choice but to continue the Bush’s foreign policies for many reasons.

1) After strong-arming the world into supporting the wars, a turnabout by the United States would weaken our influence abroad. We have to change policies without admitting to failure. And we have to create an appearance of success while changing course. Obama needs to show the world that he’s a tough leader read to use American military might.

2) Domestically Obama cannot appear to be weak on defense and weak on terrorism. Here he’s making a pragmatic political choice which corresponds to 1) above.

3) On Gitmo and Patriot acts, no president who has certain powers wants to give them up. In my opinion, it’s Congress’ job to restrain the power of the presidency.

4) The general attitude of the American public, right now is that the wars and civil liberties are out of sight, out of mind (unlike during Vietnam when the draft was creating social unrest).
Jobs are most important. It seems like Obama made the pragmatic choice not to rock the boat on foreign policy, while working on the domestic and economic agenda.

Obama is constrained on many fronts. It’s good that he’s a cool, cerebral president in this tumultuous period in our history.[/quote]

Zk: Fair enough, and here goes:

1) We did not strong-arm the world into those wars, and the European response to the invasion of Iraq will bear that point out, specifically the response of France and Germany. As to NATO/ISAF support in Afghanistan, the Europeans weren’t strong-armed into this, either, and it was their decision that al-Qaeda and the Taliban did pose a threat that needed to be addressed in Afghanistan. I would further point to Obama’s speech in Cairo as the most damning piece of evidence that Obama was seeking a clear break with Bush’s adventurism and was seeking an entente with the Arab world and one where America was clearly engaged in a new course of action.

2) Spending on Defense and the War on Terror are two very different things. While I don’t have the exact percentages, I would opine that spending on anti- and counter-terror operations is a very small percentage of the US Defense package and most of those dollars are going to support the costs of a large blue-water Navy, as well as new Air Force and Army programs. This is not a pragmatic choice at all, just refer to Defense Secretary Gates’ continued agitation for the elimination of costly and unnecessary systems and programs from the Defense budget. The pragmatic choice would be for Obama to go after that budget with an axe.

3) Obama campaigned on Gitmo and Patriot I/II. He was emphatic about the closure of Gitmo and the unwinding of both Patriot Acts. Now that he’s in the Oval Office, Brian is asking us to believe that he’s so enamored with his newfound power(s), that he’s refusing to relinquish them. That doesn’t sound like pragmatism at all, in fact, it sounds like the charges leveled by the Dems against Bush and Co. for trying to expand the powers of the Executive branch beyond reason.

4) Obama, if memory serves, was a professor of Constitutional Law. Unlike the Civil War, when Lincoln instituted martial law and suspended habeas corpus, we’re not confronting a similar threat to the Union. The facts are these: Obama has NOT closed Gitmo. He has NOT unwound Patriot I/II. He IS continuing the practice of extraordinary rendition, as well as overseeing the expansion of drone strikes, intelligence gathering operations in the AfPak region (over the protests of the Pakistani government), and he has considerably increased the troop footprint in Afghanistan. His own withdrawal schedule is unlikely to be met, if you listen to Joe Gibbs, so Brian cannot argue that Obama is serious about that withdrawal, which, based on the continued poor prosection of that war, is now farcical.

As far as Obama working on the “domestic and economic agenda”: This is exactly why he is in for the drubbing he’ll likely get tomorrow. Suffice it to say, jobs were not a high priority, or not as high a priority as passing healthcare. I’m not debating the efficacy or failure of Obamacare, simply saying that Obama didn’t turn his attention to jobs (and then only peripherally) until it was literally too late.

[afx114]

Let me sprinkle a little trollish tinder onto the pire:

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Figured both sides would get a kick out of this.

[afx114]

Let me sprinkle a little trollish tinder onto the pire:

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Figured both sides would get a kick out of this.

[afx114]

Let me sprinkle a little trollish tinder onto the pire:

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Figured both sides would get a kick out of this.

[afx114]

Let me sprinkle a little trollish tinder onto the pire:

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Figured both sides would get a kick out of this.

[Author]

Posts