I find this sad. We know that America’s infrastructure is falling apart faster than we can fix it. (So says The Discovery Channels, but what do those nerds know. They’re a bunch of dweebs).
What makes me really sad is Fox News. They used to be Americas cheerleaders. Always with the U.S.A. chants (now currently heard on The Colbert Report) and the “America, love it or get out”. Now all they want is to see Obama fail, so much so, that they are willing to sacrifice the country to do so. I saw them, a conservative group covered by Fox (a conservative network), cheering when the USA lost the bid to host the Olympics to Brazil. I could have sworn that the Fox News people said America was the best country in the world. Now all of a sudden America’s not worthy to host the Olympics? They say the reason they cheered for the loss is that the Olympic Games never generate enough income to pay for the infrastructure needed to host the games. But don’t we need new infrastructure anyway?
I’m just sayin’… Can we all agree that no matter what, America should succeed at being awesome all the time?
Image Used in this Post
Biloxi Bridge Close-Up courtesy of Flickr user laffy4k published under the CC license.
32 Comments
Jeff I am totally with you on the principle behind this post, and on the subject of infrastructure. I think hosting the Olympics would be a boost for Chicago.
However, the fact that liberals are playing the victim and trying to accuse conservatives of rooting against America is laughable. Conservatives did not spend the last five years using the headline of a dead soldier to undermine the cause that soldier died for. Nor did they use phrases like “waste a perfectly good crisis.” Conservatives root against Obama because his policies are solcialist and reward failure while punishing success, not becuase we hate infrastructure and want the country to fail.
I agree that liberals have not been better than conservatives with their stance on America. And herein lies the problem. It should be America first and Politics second. Both partys are to blame here. Their power struggle is hurting every american.
And Obama’s policies are not socialist, they are libral. It’s always been about (for the liberals) helping out those who need the help. But like you (i’m assuming) I question how much help the less fortunate are entitled to. “You can’t help those who arn’t willing to help themselves”, I always say. But ultimately not helping them will put a strain on the successful. More poverty equals more crime which leads to higher taxes so we can get adequate law enforcement and correctional facilities.
Correctional facilities are colleges for criminals.
Why because the sex you want you’re not getting, and the sex you’re getting you don’t want?
Dictionary.com lists socialism as:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Are you telling me that Obama’s policies of income redistribution, government land grab for any land containing water, health care proposals, mandatory community service for teenagers, and government takeover of privately held companies do not meet the definition above?
Jack,
One thing that almost everyone likes to forget is that more than 50% of our country’s spending on health care comes from Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are funded publicly. I think the actual figure is closer to over 65% – but I’ll need to find a source to back that. Like it or not, we ALREADY have a mostly public health care system, albeit one that is poorly managed. For that reason alone, I stand against all of the health care reform proposals I have seen to date.
I am all for health care reform, but not the reform being offered. Health care is, behind social security, the largest budget item for our government. It is critical we attack this issue now, however I have yet to see something put forth that is worth the trouble.
Obama is shaping up to be a 21st Century FDR. FDR was also accused of taking advantage of economic troubles to advance a socialist agenda and make sweeping changes to the status quo.
Was FDR a socialist? Is Obama a socialist? I don’t know. But if history is any indicator, FDR’s implementation of socialist programs did not result in a Socialist America. I have a hard time believing that Obama’s similar tactics will result in a Socialist America. I think FDR was, and Obama is, just open to using non-traditional methods to fix problems.
Jack and all other conservatives are dead on that Obama is dipping into the socialist reservoir of ideas. But is this really such a bad thing? If it works it works, and if it doesn’t it doesn’t. Why does the debate have to be about ideology when it should really be about whether the solution can work to solve the problem?
I do not agree. First because I in no way believe his policies will bring about communism in our country. Our government and people won’t allow that. Second, if you make the compairisons that you did above you can find socialism in many American policies already. (i.e. education, public sanitation, parks). Third, whats wrong with getting something back from the teenagers that get government support to go to college? Sounds like a give and take to me. Forth, income redistribution is just a fancy way of saying taxes and that already exsists. And finally, the usage of the word socialism is just a scare tactic and has done nothing but try to control the public with fear. Especially the baby boomer generation who remembers cold-war Russia.
If we look hard enough we can find similarities between socialism and Obama’s policies. We can also find similarities between a bird and a lizard, but that doesn’t make them the same thing.
Once again… Fox News is questioning why Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and saying it’s ironic that he is going into the war room today to discuss plans for Afghanistan. Which isn’t ironic at all. It’s part of the reason he won. They just can’t be happy for our pres ever.
On what exact merits did he win the Nobel Prize for Peace?
Bringing hope to the world. Changing american foreign relations. Nuke stuff. Some other stuff. I totally admit it was way early in his presadancy for him to be givin the award. But… TEAM AMERICA! F YEAH!
oh and something about redirecting the war efforts of america
How so? We’re still in Iraq and Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan (I agree with him on that though).
He was able to bring Iran to the table for diplomatic negotiations for the first time since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. I’m guessing they gave him the prize because of that…?
I have too many holes to poke in your fantasy about Obama. Sufice it to say he won the prize by being a weak, delusional fool. Submission is not peace. His actions just may result in nuclear war.
His actions just may result in peace. There are multiple outcomes. We just need to act and react in way that is best for everyone. Reaching out and talking to the world isn’t all bad and it’s a good start. Americas got a face of hope and peace now. Whats so wrong with that? The world looks to America. He is just a man to us but to the rest of the world he is the face of us.
Jeff, your answer speaks for itself: “…just may result in peace” should not constitute a Nobel Prize for Peace. Now if his actions did result in peace that would be another matter.
It just seems incredibly shortsighted to award him so soon, with no real resolution to his actions one way or another. This is an annual award, why not give it some time?
By the same token, there is a benefit to the fact that the international community likes Obama. We have had an undeniable image problem since Vietnam and improving that is a good thing. Nevertheless a knee-jerk Nobel Prize, something many hold in very high regard, seems, well, stupid.
I’m in full agreement. It is WAY to soon for him to be givin the peace prize. But why are we looking a gift horse in the mouth? It’s done and was not the decision of Americans. It was the decision of an international group. Outsiders… I mean, sure, it doen’t mean much but it’s still pretty f’n sweet. Nobel Peace Prize= UDD. How can you hate on that?
This award may go down in history as the key political game of the 21st Century….because now Obama has no room for failure. He has to achieve his goals for peace and diplomacy. He has to get reelected to have enough time to achieve all his ambitious goals. He cannot fail.
If he does not achieve his goals, then this premature prize will act as a constant reminder of how Obama failed. It will be a running joke forever. If he achieves all his goals, then kudos to the Nobel people for adding extra pressure to an already ambitious president.
That still belies the fact that a Nobel Prize should not be awarded for something you are going to do.
I will finish college!.. but can I get my degree first?
Check this out…
According to the Associated Press, “Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.”
How the hell can two weeks of Presidency validate a Nobel Peace Prize?
It’s not the first time a peace prize was givin out prematurely. Nelson Mandela was givin one before he ended apartheid. And thats not the only other time. I totally agree with Andrew though. This award only counts if he doesn’t fail.
And Greg… Obama agree’s with you. He doesn’t know what he did to validate getting it either.
Has anyone even considered the fact that this decision is made public the day before Obama meets to decide weather or not to listen to his commadners and send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan? Bush had the balls to do the politically unpopular thing when he commited to the surge that won Iraq. I really hope Obama does too. I have never faulted his Afghanistan strategy, but this decision will tell everyone an awful lot about Barack Obama. Nobel thinks they can steer American war efforts, I really hope they are wrong.
He has to bolster the war effort in Afghanistan, period.
It’ll be a decade old war while he’s in office. That’s a long time.
I think it was the day of. But yeah there’s always another reason. And I too hope Obama listen’s to his commanders. This war should be over by now and we need to take the steps to end it. 40,000 or 60,000 whatever it takes
First of all…you have Ann Coulter popping up on your AdSense asking your readers to join her column on an article that bashes Fox News…lol
Ithe Nobel Peace Prize worth anything anymore? Really? After a former Vice President of the United States won it for his greenhouse gas awareness efforts? The same man who spends thousands a month heating his indoor pools in his guess what…green houses! Giving the Nobel Prize to Obama just two weeks after taking office is just as de-valuing as giving it to Gore (who probably was notified of the award while on one of his private jets – blasting a jet-fuel carbon air-print from LA to NY)
It all makes me sick. Jack I hear you though…whether it is Bush being condemned for his efforts in Iraq or Obama being given a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in Afghanistan…either way I support such efforts as they are both making our country a safer place.
Jeff…Loosing faith in the news because Fox News is being critical and negative of Obama??? Were you loosing faith in the news when CNN, The NY Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, CBS, and every other major news organization were nailing W. with such criticism?
What would happen to Fox News ratings if all the red states tuned in one day and Obama was being praised for all he has done so far??? What would happen if all the blue states tuned into CNN and W. was being praised for doing such a good job? Just as a politician will always cater to their voting base…a media organization will always cater to their ratings base.
Loosing faith due to there flip floping. They used to be all about America no matter what. Now they are so hellbent on seeing Obama fail they are willing to watch the country burn to do so. They are conservitives. I expect them to bash Obama. Not America. And your right CNN, MSNBC and the other left wing networks were no better. But they didn’t make the claim “America, Love it or get out”. I respected Fox for having that stance. But as soon as their guy was out of office their stance went out the window. Thats what i’m loosing faith about.
Sorry, just realized I replied to the main article thread instead of directly to your comment…my bad!
All is lost.
I agree with you for the most part but from a realistic sense, I still think it is all based on the ratings of bipartisan fan-bases. On the other hand, I think it is a beautiful thing that the people/journalists of America can criticize their leader in the public spotlight (as CNN did W. and Fox now does to Obama) and not have to worry about their hand being chopped off or being executed in front of their family. Know where else in the world people can now do that?
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said OBAMA…One Big A** Mistake America!! Deep down inside I felt sad because that is our leader..you know? It’s the same way I felt when I saw signs that were anti-W. Again, though…freedom of speah is a beautiful thing. Its a hell of an alternative to fascism.