These’s Just No Pleasing Some People

I admit, the Obama apology tour has been a while, but the Cairo speech aftermath, that “New beginning” speech where he offered to close that chasm created by that other guy, has worn off rather dramatically. It seems now that some in the Muslim community hate him even more than Bush. How is that possible? The citizen of the world president was elected to heal, to make amends for decades of American imperialism and misdeeds, to prostate himself before Islam with an open heart. All that good will (and bowing) down the drain:

 

 

Far be it for me to label Obama a Muslim, he said he is not, and really, this is America and one’s faith is immaterial  to one’s electability and their powers to lead. By some of those “religion of peace” folks  don’t continence  anyone leaving the faith. Sadly, Sharia is very clear about what should be done with apostates, even those that aren’t really apostates but you think they are anyway.

Technically, we should just chalk this up to incoherent ramblings from a lunatic,  and aren’t all these jihadist/ death to apostates/ Osama was just one swell dude/ my, but my beard itches/ I’m now in the mood to beat my wife (wives) really all crazy anyway?

If this imam dude was a 13 year old kid living in Tacoma, he would of already been yanked out dynamite vest making class, man would his mom be pissed.

Settle down boys, in 2012 you will have another president to hate, but let’s cut Obama some slack, he does mean well, and he is one your side with that pesky Israel problem.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    You’re sure Obama will lose next year? Beaten by Romney?

    Obama is on which side when it comes to Israel? Seems pretty even-handed on the issue. His latest speech was just reinforcing the US position as it was until 2004. Nothing controversial about it.
    How has he ‘prostated himself before Islam’? What does that even mean?

    Obama was on a hiding-to-nothing as soon as he won. People are always naturally disappointed when they don’t get all they expect.

    EDIT: Obama and you have much more in common than he does with this fucker. Doesn’t that kinda go without saying, it’s so obvious?

    Thumb up 0

  2. CM

    BTW I love the “whether that apostate…..what’s his name….the one from America….”. Sounds like he’s just making shit up as he goes along. “Fuck, I’d better throw him in here, they might be expecting it”.

    Thumb up 0

  3. loserlame

    Obama’s still just an American, after all, as the birth certificate those millions of typical American Deniers demanded to see finally proved, kinda….
    What remains to be seen, hopefully via the noble Wikileaks, woohoo, is how much pressure the oil lobby is putting on Obama and his family to perform to their “patriotic” standards – the subtle death threats, “Muslim” bombs planted everywhere, killing our soldiers and mercenaries, prolonging our militant religiously-themed oil grab…. keeping the Pledge of Allegiance in and the Solid Proofs of Evolution and AGW, and Sex Ed out of schools….

    Thumb up 0

  4. richtaylor365 *

    You’re sure Obama will lose next year? Beaten by Romney?

    Not at all, this was more of my wishful thinking getting the better of me. As I’ve blogged about in other threads, nobody on the GOP (that will run this time) is blowing up my skirt. Obama is The Man, and it will take something extra ordinary to send him back to the mean streets.

    How has he ‘prostated himself before Islam’? What does that even mean?

    What it means is that, like many progressives, Obama, in an attempt to distance himself from Bush, has chosen the path of contrition. In Cairo he said this:

    More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims

    Unless he is talking about the Russian invasion and colonialization of Afghanistan, something we helped combat and turn around BTW, no American sins here.

    He also said:

    Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

    Gee, now he is apologizing because we have big screen TV’s, 4G phones, clothes washers that use less water, and more fuel efficient automobiles, and this is somehow hostile to Islam?

    He then visits a number our allies and does it some more. He goes to France and says that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe. Next up, Prague, where he said America has “a moral responsibility to act” on arms control because only the U.S. had “used a nuclear weapon”, huh? now that was a bad thing? He goes to Latin America and reveals more soiled laundry blaming us for not being engaging enough and failing to see “That their progress is tied to ours”, yep, it’s our failure.

    It took Obama two years to even mention such Islamic slurs as the GWOT, resorting to weak phony euphemisms like “man caused disasters” and “overseas contingency operations”. Even with the advent of the Ft. Hood shootings, he, nor his administration could bring themselves to even consider that this might be a terrorist attack (knowing how that phrase might upset our Muslim friends) even though it was committed by a self proclaimed Muslim yelling ,”allahu akbar” through out the shooting rampage.

    You may have a plausible explanation for all of these things, that’s cool, and most of this stuff comes down to just a difference of opinion, but his bowing to the Saudi’s, his constant reminder to the world that America has many past sins that most be recognized and amends made, I don’t like it.

    Thumb up 1

  5. Rann

    How has he ‘prostated himself before Islam’?

    Well, there was the bit where he retasked NASA from “space exploration” to “make Muslims feel good about their contributions to the sciences”.

    And yes, that’s a big oversimplification, but Obama still placed that among NASA’s top priorities, if not making it their top priority, in NASA’s own words.

    You know, I don’t even think he’s a Muslim, but I honestly can’t blame anyone who thinks he is. Throwing evidence wood on that conspiracy theory fire seems to be one of his favorite pastimes.

    Thumb up 1

  6. InsipiD

    He not only pushed that forward as a goal of theirs, he backed it up by slashing their previous primary objective: space exploration. The Constellation program was probably the right thing to do, and closely followed the examples of the successful Apollo program. Obama crammed that baby down the drain with the bathwater. But I’m sure that Muslim outreach is just as important.

    Thumb up 0

  7. InsipiD

    That doesn’t mean they’d help his opponent. I don’t think that suddenly the media is behind Ron Paul, no matter how many doobies they want.

    Thumb up 0

  8. loserlame

    I don’t like his acting like a New Age global citizen Euro much, either. Euros like to “apologize” about their quaint lil mistakes made that caused WW2, and are quick to lecture anyone showing any signs of Hitler’s attitudes and mannerisms, but I couldn’t help noticing the many Red Army Faction/Green Party sanctioned PLO kaffiyeh hanging from the rearview mirrors of Kraut Beemers and Mercs, religiously polished to a similar mirror-like sheen every weekend, as the good people cursed and scoffed the goddamn “filthy losers” who didn’t do the same with their “cheap shit” imports.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Kimpost

    Unsurprisingly, I don’t agree with the apology narrative – at all. This is what Obama said in Paris.

    In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

    I found it refreshingly honest. I would even argue that most political analysts would agree with the statement. Anyway, above deserves to be put in context. Here’s the following passage of the same speech.

    But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.

    Wasn’t he just saying that “we’ve all been bad, let’s do better”? That’s supposed to be controversial?

    Thumb up 0

  10. Rann

    One wonders if it’s possible for the media to do the equivalent of “staying home”? Where they don’t support his opponent, but they stop covering up every Obama gaffe and dismissing it as “not news”. Which would leave only the really far left outlets doing it, which would make it more obvious, which would wind up hurting him.

    Thumb up 0

  11. loserlame

    Yes, it is. because Euros lecture endlessly “We did some wrong and learned and now we are ‘good’ and thereore singly qualified to judge whats ‘good’, however we choose, 24/7.”

    Europeans, not “Americans”, slaughtered and watered down the many Native American cultures from Alaska/Canada to Chile from 1492 on.

    With them vanquished, they chose African slaves to tend to their large green farm work, as they fought amongst themselves endlessly in the Old Country. Ditto the noble Arabs and Africans. It goes on to this day. What lecture the reformed, the professors of good and noble?

    “Americans have no culture, they held slaves, dropped the bomb on Japan, put McDonalds everywhere, are killing the grass and trees for profit, death to them”

    There is no pleasing the self-righteous, and when all is said and done, Obama will have been just a black dude grown up on American fast food, after all. At least he tried. But still no cigar.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Monolith

    I would even argue that most political analysts would agree with the statement.

    Gotta say, this is the same unsubstantiated bullshit the left used to sell in ObamaCare and tries to use to sell AGW. “Most ____ agree that…” Calling bullshit on you.

    Thumb up 0

  13. Kimpost

    Admitting that I haven’t conducted a poll, would “many” suit you better than “most”? I was just going with my overall perception there.

    Anyway, the point is that nothing in the above quoted should invoke controversy, IMO. Not even the first part (the criticized bit), if it had to stand on its own. Seeing the following paragraph, and its wording, it becomes even more puzzling to me.

    Thumb up 0

  14. richtaylor365 *

    In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.

    Maybe in the little elitist , snobby, upper crust Harvard circles he hangs with but he does not speak for me or the majority of Americans. And this made up short coming he thinks we have provides the perfect platform for his typical America hating nonsense, that if some in the world hate us, we have ourselves to blame.

    Wasn’t he just saying that “we’ve all been bad, let’s do better”?

    Yes, that is what he is saying and he is flat out wrong. I’m surprised you did not spot this, it wasn’t even particularly clever. In saying ,”We have all been bad”, it conveniently puts everyone on the same plane, the same level of culpability, and that is not accurate. The terrorist lunatics attacked us, remember? I know it’s de rigueur to spread the nonsense that they were just provoked by something we did, that if we just didn’t help the Mujahedin in their fight for freedom, or if we stayed out of Kuwait when they were invaded, or if we didn’t help that nasty Shah of Iran, it’s always America’s fault. Now personally, I don’t care if some jihadist nutjob with the bullhorn in the streets of Islamabad wants to propagate this crap, but I really don’t like it when my president does it.

    I think just using the few examples we provided above, it shows a pattern, and pattern of apology, a pattern of placating himself before other nations, some of which BTW have real blood on their hands.

    The class warfare tactic, is another perfect example of how he does not get it. He is no advocate of American exceptionalism, his policies counter it, to him all that has done is impoverish people. He can not see how this spirit has created wealth and prosperity, no, it is a condemnation of America because there are still poor people that exist. He believes that the very ideals that made this country great are fundamentally flawed, and speak more towards our short comings then our strengths.

    No, he is an apologist, no getting around that.

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    Yep, yet again, I’m completely with Kimpost. I don’t see any ‘prostating before Islam’ in any of these examples. I don’t buy the ‘apology narrative’.
    Most in Europe would agree that America was arrogant and dismissive and even derisive during their drumbeat for war (dividing Europe into ‘old’ and ‘new’ according to who signed up). But then, as Kimpost notes, he criticised anti-Americanism, even noting that it can be insidious.
    To me it seemed a good way of trying to refresh important relationships that had taken a few hits in the recent past. I thought he struck a good balance.

    Thumb up 0

  16. CM

    Maybe in the little elitist , snobby, upper crust Harvard circles he hangs with but he does not speak for me or the majority of Americans.

    This is an anti-intellectual issue? Really?

    And this made up short coming he thinks we have provides the perfect platform for his typical America hating nonsense, that if some in the world hate us, we have ourselves to blame.

    Which short-coming?
    Where is the “America hating nonsense”? Where does he say that if some in the world hate America, it’s America’s fault?
    I think you’re reading an awful lot into what he actually said.

    Yes, that is what he is saying and he is flat out wrong. I’m surprised you did not spot this, it wasn’t even particularly clever. In saying ,”We have all been bad”, it conveniently puts everyone on the same plane, the same level of culpability, and that is not accurate. The terrorist lunatics attacked us, remember?

    I don’t believe that terrorists were his audience. I don’t see why you’d assume he was equating American and European foreign policy with the act of terrorism.

    I know it’s de rigueur to spread the nonsense that they were just provoked by something we did, that if we just didn’t help the Mujahedin in their fight for freedom, or if we stayed out of Kuwait when they were invaded, or if we didn’t help that nasty Shah of Iran, it’s always America’s fault.

    This doesn’t seem to match up with what Obama has said.

    Now personally, I don’t care if some jihadist nutjob with the bullhorn in the streets of Islamabad wants to propagate this crap, but I really don’t like it when my president does it.

    When did he propagate that narrative? Can you provide the quotes? Above you suggested that he was “apologizing because we have big screen TV’s, 4G phones, clothes washers that use less water, and more fuel efficient automobiles, and this is somehow hostile to Islam?” However, at least to me, that bears no relation to what he actually said.

    I think just using the few examples we provided above, it shows a pattern, and pattern of apology, a pattern of placating himself before other nations, some of which BTW have real blood on their hands.

    Again, I don’t think your examples match up with your interpretation.

    The class warfare tactic, is another perfect example of how he does not get it. He is no advocate of American exceptionalism, his policies counter it, to him all that has done is impoverish people.

    Can you point me to some policy examples?

    He can not see how this spirit has created wealth and prosperity, no, it is a condemnation of America because there are still poor people that exist. He believes that the very ideals that made this country great are fundamentally flawed, and speak more towards our short comings then our strengths.

    Can you provide some examples of where he has said or inferred that those “very ideals” are fundamentally flawed?

    No, he is an apologist, no getting around that.

    He might very well be. But I don’t think we have any examples yet to demonstrate that.

    Thumb up 0

  17. CM

    Can you give me some links on this? I’m struggling to find anything any articles about how “Musim outreach” is now NASA’s top priority.

    Also, according to the Wikipedia page:

    President Barack Obama announced changes to NASA space policy, in his April 15, 2010 space policy speech at Kennedy Space Center, from the Moon-first approach adopted previously under the Vision for Space Exploration and Constellation program to a variety of destinations resembling the flexible path approach.

    Is that what you mean by “slashing their previous primary objective”?

    Throwing evidence wood on that conspiracy theory fire seems to be one of his favorite pastimes.

    There is a conspiracy EVERYWHERE – you just gotta know where to look.

    Thumb up 0

  18. Kimpost

    I don’t know. I would like to look at each action, and/or each statement separately, to conclude if there’s evidence of selling America short.

    If we stick to the Paris speech, what is it that I should have spotted? There are no terrorists in the passages mentioned. There are only western democracies, namely Americans and Europeans. Surely, we belong on the same playing field?

    Anti-European sentiments do exist in America. Not just among Harvard elites (never heard that before, and it sounds unlikely to me), but more so with pundits on the right, and possibly with “the folks” (TM), as Bill O’Reilly calls them. I see it quite often, actually, even on this very blog. Remember, we supposedly condone paedophilia over here. ;) And how many times have I not read how the UN (granted, it’s not an European organisation) is worthless and should be thrown out of New York?

    On the other hand there is anti-Americanism in Europe too. Stereotyping about you Americans clinging to their guns and bibles, and/or about their lack of geography skills (something we, in all honesty, are equally bad in).

    Obama spoke up against both, without saying that one was worse than the other. Which made perfect sense to me, but I see that it didn’t to you. I just don’t understand why.

    Perhaps because you Americans are so stupid?

    Kidding! ;)

    Thumb up 1

  19. richtaylor365 *

    Obama spoke up against both, without saying that one was worse than the other. Which made perfect sense to me, but I see that it didn’t to you. I just don’t understand why.

    That part was perfectly sensible, taken in the context of just that speech, but I provided other examples where I believe there is a pattern, you don’t see it, fair enough.

    What I meant by the Harvard elites believing that America does not appreciate our European brothers was not that they hold such views but that they, being much superior to the unwashed, believe that middle America, those same unwashed, hold that notion. I was unclear and worded that poorly.

    If we stick to the Paris speech, what is it that I should have spotted? There are no terrorists in the passages mentioned. There are only western democracies, namely Americans and Europeans. Surely, we belong on the same playing field?

    Yes, we do, but in the context of we, the speech was broadcast worldwide, the audience is immaterial, the “we” is all those worldwide that heard it, and when you say ,”we have all done bad and can do better” this lessens the real evil that was perpetrated (like 9/11) and puts it on a plane of some policy decisions that some might think were bad, it puts everything in the same basket were all is equally at fault.

    Thumb up 0

  20. InsipiD

    That story backpedals a bit and claims a misunderstanding, but do I believe that Obama told the new director those things? Yes. Did he then go on to cut programs of manned travel? Yes. Actions speak louder than words, especially doublespeak.

    Thumb up 0

  21. Monolith

    In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.

    OK, I’ll bite. In what, exactly, is Europe leading the world? Debt? Social unrest? Racial division? Guilt? Nanny-statism? Elitism? Europe does have many fine manufacturing successes. For example the automotive and aerospace industries. But leading role? I, for one, am not buying it.

    Thumb up 0

  22. CM

    Makes much more sense that Obama said it was HIS task (in particular, if he were to be interviewed on, say, Al-Jazeera). Rather than NASA’s task. That makes no sense at all.
    And how are cuts to manned travel missions consistent with “make Muslims feel good about their contributions to the sciences”.? I don’t get it. According to a link from your piece:

    Instead of Constellation, President Obama suggested NASA aim to take humans to an asteroid by 2025 and then on to Mars by the mid-2030s.

    The President also proposed extending the International Space Station, which was set to be decommissioned in 2016, through 2020.

    And:

    Did President Obama cut NASA’s funding?

    Actually, the new plan calls for $19 billion in funding for NASA in 2011, a slight increase from the $18.3 billion it was allotted in 2010. The President also asked for an extra $6 billion over five years to support commercial spaceships to launch NASA astronauts into space.

    Does the new plan cancel the space shuttle?

    NASA’s fleet of three space shuttles ? Discovery, Endeavour and Atlantis ? has been slated to retire this year since as far back as 2004. The decision to retire the shuttles was made following the Columbia accident as part of the Constellation plan, under the administration of George W. Bush.

    Is NASA getting out of the human spaceflight business?

    A common misconception about the new plan is that President Obama wants NASA to hand off the business of flying people to space to the private sector.

    In fact, the new plan aims to hand off the job of flying people to low-Earth orbit to commercial companies. But that would allow NASA to focus on building spaceships to carry humans beyond Earth orbit, to an asteroid, Mars or beyond, the President has said.

    http://www.space.com/8656-nasa-direction-faq.html

    So where are the drastic cuts (let alone to the point where not only is the bath being emptied but the baby is being thrown out to)?
    Where is the double-speak?

    Thumb up 0

  23. CM

    Monolith I don’t think it was a reference to a particular field or aspect. I think it’s an acknowledgement that much of the world is still lead by what happens in Europe. America too, of course. Between them, they’ve effectively been leading the world (e.g. economically, via the UNSC permanent seats, via NATO). Obviously Asia is now starting to rear it’s head, but any sort of ‘leadership’ from them is still a way off.

    Thumb up 0

  24. Monolith

    Ok CM, I can buy aspects of that, but does the US really fail to appreciate the EU’s role? Or is it Obama’s perception of what the American people think? I don’t have the facts, but I suspect we contribute more than the EU to the initiatives and groups to which you refer. I do appreciate their role though, contrary to what our President says.

    Should we really act apologetic for the perception of some that we don’t appreciate Europe’s debatable contribution to the world? I just think he’s overstating both their role and our lack of appreciation. He overstates often (admittedly, a flaw in many politicians of every stripe), but does he have to repeatedly do it on foreign soil? That is the point I’m making and it’s only my opinion, not a fact.

    Thumb up 0

  25. InsipiD

    It won’t let me reply to your reply above this (Win XP, Firefox if it matters later), so I’ll reply here.

    Yes, that’s his mission. He’s the head of NASA. If that’s his mission, and NASA’s resources are what he has to work with, then it’s NASA’s mission. He gave the new director 3 goals, none of which had to do with manned or unmanned spaceflight. It wasn’t get/keep Constellation on track to minimize our time depending on Russian launches. It wasn’t to make sure that NASA has plans for viable and scientifically appropriate unmanned flights. It wasn’t even for NASA to tell us about what might or might not be happening with global warming. It was children, internationals, and Muslims. That was dumb.

    Secondly, Obama is proposing ambitious targets, but cutting the Constellation program that was half-completed and was the way for NASA to continue manned spaceflight. How the hell is NASA going to reach an asteroid or Mars without Constellation? It won’t. It’s his way to say he’s not against space travel, but still cancel the Bush-originated programs perhaps because they were Bush’s. If there’s a NASA manned program other than Constellation/Orion, it’s either the same thing with a different name (to distance from Bush) or reinventing the wheel when you’re halfway done.

    Obama’s space policy is foolish. If he had simply left it alone, it would be ready to do more sooner than with his tampering.

    Thumb up 0

  26. CM

    Well none of what you claim seems to match up with what NASA are saying:
    http://www.space.com/8657-misconceptions-swirl-obama-space-plan.html

    Additionally (from that link):

    President Obama also asked for an extra $6 billion over five years to support a new initiative to spur private companies to develop commercial spacecraft capable of ferrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station

    Isn’t ultimately reducing the burden on the tax-payer something that conservatives should be happy about (which in this current political climate effectively means saying nothing about, just in case someone might think you’re an Obama-lover, given that everything apparently needs to be binary)?

    I’m sorry but a set of goals for any one persons doesn’t (evenly remotely)determine the entirety of what any organisation does or is for. Trying to argue that just comes across as more ODS (how can they possibly spend $19 billion in 2001 on those three tasks alone??).

    As for your ‘distancing-from-Bush’ narrative – that would require the official reasons to be wrong, or at least inadequate (to a point beyond simply disagreeing about the bets way forward). Were they wrong or inadequate? Obama said the program was “over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation”.

    Thumb up 0

  27. CM

    does the US really fail to appreciate the EU’s role?

    I think sometimes the main players in Europe, and a significant proportion of the population, may hold that view, yeah. E.g. when the US President seeks to divide Europe up (into ‘old’ and ‘new’) and play nations off each other to get support for a dubious war he wishes to prosecute.

    Or is it Obama’s perception of what the American people think?

    To me, it came across as a welcome realisation that if you want to continue to have allies, and rebuild relationhips, it’s important to acknowledge certain positions. I don’t see it as weakness. I think the fact that you can do it actually suggests strength. That you can appreciate where they are coming from.

    I suspect we contribute more than the EU to the initiatives and groups to which you refer. I do appreciate their role though, contrary to what our President says.

    He said:

    In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

    I may be wrong, but I didn’t take his comments to refer to all Americans, all the time. The second part refers to ‘times’ when America (via it’s President) has acted like Europe doesn’t matter, that it can do what it likes and Europe can just take it. I think what Obama means is that America shouldn’t act like that, because Europe is essentially a whole lot of important allies. And America is always going to need allies. More than ever if it’s not going to be the sole super-power. Sure, there will always be disagreements. But those are nothing compared to the differences between US/EU and terrorists, or nations that condone terrorism.

    Should we really act apologetic for the perception of some that we don’t appreciate Europe’s debatable contribution to the world?

    I don’t know if this is a cultural difference or what, but I don’t see it as any sort of apology. As Kimpost said, if you actually take more than just little bits out, and consider the context, it’s much more an acknowledgement of a situation, and an attempt to start moving back closer together.

    I just think he’s overstating both their role and our lack of appreciation. He overstates often (admittedly, a flaw in many politicians of every stripe), but does he have to repeatedly do it on foreign soil? That is the point I’m making and it’s only my opinion, not a fact.

    This is obviously all just my opinion as well, and I’m just saying how it came across to me (as someone not in the US or Europe, but with great affection for both).
    He could have been more accurate if he’d talked in more greater specifics, but I don’t think he wanted to go down that road because then it’s a domestic political speech. Even if he’s said ‘some’, he’d be abused for that. Makes sense to me that he’d intentionally keep things broad. After all, the whole point of the speech was to try to draw a line under the blame-game, and try to suggest that it would be better for everybody if the EU-US relationship started afresh (as much as that is possible).

    Thumb up 0

  28. HARLEY

    space exploration. The Constellation program was probably the right thing to do, and closely followed the examples of the successful Apollo program. Obama crammed that baby down the drain with the bathwater. But I’m sure that Muslim outreach is just as important.

    Uh, i hate to do this, but inispiD, youa re partly wrong.
    The Constellation program, was welfare for the legacy rocket companies ATK and Lock-Mart. The budget was large, but specifications required that existing components, to be used in such a way that everything needed to be changed.
    As designs changed weight was added which changed the profile of the main booster rocker, teh F-ing Shuttle SRB. Deadlines not met, schedule’s slipped, in typical Federal Government agency style. the Cost went though the ceiling.added to that a meandering list of destinations for the program, the moon, asteroids, Mars, all with out a commitment to do anything once we got there. Basically repeating the mistakes of Apollo, while spending a LOT more.
    Teh Program was bloated, behind schedule, years behind, and wasting money left and right.

    so now you ask what about manned access to space, well sir, you have capitalism to thank for that
    in the form of SpaceX and XCOR, Bigelow ,Virgin Galactic and a few others.
    space X is building a series of rockets to launch a manned capsule to orbit and back, and picking up NASA astronauts like a Taxi service. the others are planning on providing launch service and on orbit faculties, to be used, by their customers. Even the old school builders have come together to offer their own services, in the form of the United Launch Alliance, and its Atlas series rockets.
    Ins sort we are seeing the development of a private access to space system, and not a government run one.

    now as for the Muslim out reach, yes the Director of NASA did say that was one of the prioties that he was given.

    Thumb up 0

  29. HARLEY

    In fact, the new plan aims to hand off the job of flying people to low-Earth orbit to commercial companies. But that would allow NASA to focus on building spaceships to carry humans beyond Earth orbit, to an asteroid, Mars or beyond, the President has said.

    the weird thing is that Obama has done his best to increase the size of government, yet oddly he has no problem handing off Launch services to the private sector, but why is that is it because the founder of SpaceX is Elon Musk? you know PayPal and Tesla Motors?

    Thumb up 0

  30. Monolith

    So basically your saying it’s all Bush’s fault that the EU doesn’t like us. Ha! You used a lot of words to say that CM.

    Bush was close with both Blair and Sarkozy. Not sure what you mean by, “old Europe vs. new Europe,” but the criticism we received from Europeans had nothing to do with their oil & business interests in Iraq right? Or the fact that Russia was heavily invested in the Hussein regime that many EU countries were tied into right? In fact many European countries joined our coalition (at least 15 according to a cursory Wikipedia search). I believe that’s a larger coalition than the current Libya one Obama is supporting. So your argument is misinformed. In fact, my perception is that many Europeans find any excuse to criticize the US, even if their governments support what we’re doing.

    And according to you, alienating England and pissing off Sarkozy is an example of mending fences. Throwing Churchill’s bust back in England’s face and giving American-formatted DVDs as a state gift is mending fences. So much so that the Obamas didn’t get invited to the inbreed wedding. Yes, I refer to the so-called royals as inbreeds.

    Dude, your view appears so warped, you have it backwards. I appreciate your level-headed argument, but you could have just said, “It’s Bush’s fault they’re mad at us and Obama is fixing it.”

    Thumb up 0

  31. CM

    Ah right. I knew SOMEBODY would find a reason to criticise him using private enterprise. Damed if he does, damned if he doesn’t (just like Bush was on many issues).

    Thumb up 0

  32. HARLEY

    Ah right. I knew SOMEBODY would find a reason to criticise him using private enterprise. Damed if he does, damned if he doesn’t (just like Bush was on many issues).

    How many more government endeavors has Obama ceded to the private sector?
    If you read my other post on this subject, you would see i support this decision, but im dubious as to the Why.

    Thumb up 0

  33. CM

    So basically your saying it’s all Bush’s fault that the EU doesn’t like us. Ha! You used a lot of words to say that CM.

    No, I’m not saying it’s all Bush’s fault at all. Anti-Americanism in Europe existed long before Bush became President (or was born). I’m saying that he made it a lot worse. Obviously there is a minority in Europe who are fundamentally anti-American (for whatever reason, legitimately connected to their circumstance, semi-legitimately, or illegitimately). But what Bush did with his approach on Iraq was to stir up anti-American feelings in moderates – those that never really had a reason to question American foreign policy or aggression before. Those are the people that influence their own governments. The extremists don’t. And of course anti-Americanism amongst moderate Europeans was possibily at any all-time low following 9/11. He switched that right around with his Iraq debacle.

    Bush was close with both Blair and Sarkozy. Not sure what you mean by, “old Europe vs. new Europe,”

    You don’t remember the shitstorm that erupted after Bush called Poland “old Europe”?
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/may/31/20030531-122823-5731r/

    but the criticism we received from Europeans had nothing to do with their oil & business interests in Iraq right?

    You can’t prove that they did, and I can’t prove that they didn’t. But there were good reasons to oppose the war that have nothing to do with European oil and business interests. I tried on another thread to discuss this, but clearly it was going to be impossible to have a rational discussion so I gave up.

    In fact many European countries joined our coalition (at least 15 according to a cursory Wikipedia search). I believe that’s a larger coalition than the current Libya one Obama is supporting. So your argument is misinformed.

    How exactly is my argument ‘misinformed’?
    Which 15? What percentage of the total countries in Europe were on-board then? What were the governments offered in return for joining up? What was the public opinion in those countries? Why does European public perception of US foreign policy completely rely on how many nations in Europe have signed-up to a posse called the Coaltion of the Willing (which is a very manipulative and cynical name – some have suggested that it should have been named Coalition of the Billing given the large amounts of foreign aid being offered in exchange for support – that name is no less cynical).

    In fact, my perception is that many Europeans find any excuse to criticize the US, even if their governments support what we’re doing.

    Government support and public support are often too different things. However I would agree that some Europeans find any excuse to criticise the US. Equally it seems the same applies the other way. I think many of the people (on both sides) either suffer from either a deep seated inferiority complex, or a deep seated superiority complex.

    And according to you, alienating England and pissing off Sarkozy is an example of mending fences.

    What are you talking about? Where did I say that?

    Throwing Churchill’s bust back in England’s face and giving American-formatted DVDs as a state gift is mending fences. So much so that the Obamas didn’t get invited to the inbreed wedding.

    Yikes, you really think those silly little ODS narratives are even remotely comparable? Seriously??!
    Actually it turns out that Obama harbors a secret hatred for the British because his paternal grandfather was tortured by British soldiers during the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya in the 1950s.

    Yes, I refer to the so-called royals as inbreeds

    Sorry, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Was it meant to be offensive? The royal family have as much relevance to my life as they do to yours. Although I do find it ironic that you’d pick THIS wedding to call them inbreds when the bride (this time) is from ‘regular folk’.

    Dude, your view appears so warped, you have it backwards.

    Right back at you. Your response has a strong smell of ODS. You might not even realise. I don’t even know what your weird comment about the British royal family is meant to be about.

    I appreciate your level-headed argument, but you could have just said, “It’s Bush’s fault they’re mad at us and Obama is fixing it.”

    If that’s what I thought then that’s what I would have said. Sorry, but I’m not really a fan of chronic over-simplifications lazily thrown out to support ideological narratives.

    Thumb up 0

  34. Monolith

    You don’t remember the shitstorm that erupted after Bush called Poland “old Europe”?
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/may/31/20030531-122823-5731r

    You are correct. I actually forgot about that comment. That was not the smartest thing to say at the time. It’s always fun to tweak the French though:)

    What are you talking about? Where did I say that?

    Ok, you didn’t say that exactly and we can go tit for tat all night. My main assertion is that Obama’s diplomatic style is from a position of weakness, not a position of strength. I guess that’s why I didn’t vote for him. Bush sure wasn’t perfect, but he was the lead dog. Just because some European countries and citizens didn’t agree, didn’t make it wrong. Obviously, there are strong feelings on both sides.

    Funny now that that it’s Libya, the Old Europe countries like France are all full of piss and vinegar. And Obama is content to follow along. It must be his way of leading.

    Thumb up 0

  35. loserlame

    No, I’m not saying it’s all Bush’s fault at all. Anti-Americanism in Europe existed long before Bush became President (or was born). I’m saying that he made it a lot worse. Obviously there is a minority in Europe who are fundamentally anti-American (for whatever reason, legitimately connected to their circumstance, semi-legitimately, or illegitimately). But what Bush did with his approach on Iraq was to stir up anti-American feelings in moderates – those that never really had a reason to question American foreign policy or aggression before.

    I disagree. Euros didn’t give a (being sexually enlightened global villagers) flying Chinese fuck about Iraq before or after the invasion, it was all “Haha! We knew it, again, the US needs oil and will stop at nothing cowboy Xtian to get it. No culture no culture! Their cars suck, their oils too cheap, they’re to blame for global warming.” The familiar, dim, rote chant goes on to this day.

    They also didn’t do a damn thing to end apartheid, a Dutch creation, in 1994. Not 1894, 1945 or 1969. Its gotten worse there since.

    Thumb up 0

  36. NativeSon

    Europeans, not “Americans”, slaughtered and watered down the many Native American cultures from Alaska/Canada to Chile from 1492 on.

    Loserlame – I have to call bullshit to your statement! Just two quick examples I found in no time.

    Thomas Jefferson was an American, right?

    ““[O]ur settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi. The former is certainly the termination of their history most happy for themselves” (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Henry Harrison, February 27, 1803). After the Louisiana Purchase, he even suggested making the Mississippi River the new permanent line of White settlement in North America. Although Jefferson quickly dropped the idea, thereafter the removal of Indians to the West became part of the public discourse and an increasing inevitability. In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act. From 1831 to 1839, the major tribes of the Southeast, the so-called Five Civilized Tribes, were relocated to Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). Removal was designed to remove an obstacle to White settlement, ”

    Theodore Roosevelt….American, right?

    “In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) called it “a mighty pulverizing engine to break up the tribal mass” (Theodore Roosevelt, First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1901). As a result of Allotment, 65 percent of Indian lands passed out of Native hands between 1887 and 1934.”

    oh yeah……and he said this

    “In 1886 he said: “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.”

    Believe me I can go on and on. My step brothers grandmother had some fun stories about her time in boarding school. Not being allowed to speak her own language or act too “indian.”

    Thumb up 0

  37. loserlame

    What I’m saying is that, as much as Euros try to perpetuate the myth, the millions of Euro emigrating to the US brought with them European attitudes; they didn’t pick up “American” habits, or become US citizens upon arrival. I was educated in Europe that “Americans” wiped out the “Indians” which simply is not true. 1776-1492 = 284 years of non-American immigrants apparently killing a lot in North America alone-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

    The French and Indian War is the common U.S. name for the war between Great Britain and France in North America from 1754 to 1763. In 1756, the war erupted into the world-wide conflict known as the Seven Years’ War and thus came to be regarded as the North American theater of that war. In Canada, it is usually just referred to as the Seven Years’ War, although French Canadians often call it La guerre de la Conquête (“The War of Conquest”).] In Europe, there is no specific name for the North American part of the war. The name refers to the two main enemies of the British colonists: the royal French forces and the various Native American forces allied with them, although Great Britain had also Native allies.

    Colonists, eh, not “Americans”.

    The conflict is known by several names, such as King William’s War or Queen Anne’s War. British colonists named the second war in King George’s reign after their opponents, and thus it became known as the French and Indian War. This traditional name remains standard in the United States, although it obscures the fact that American Indians fought on both sides of the conflict.

    I was told that Native Americans were vegans living in harmony with nature, dancing around the totem pole, when cowboys with six-shooters and Winchester rifles came around and shot them for fun and profit. Did peace and love among Euro immigrants and the locals finally ensue?

    Britain gained control of French Canada and Acadia, colonies containing approximately 80,000 primarily French-speaking Roman Catholic residents. The deportation of Acadians beginning in 1755 resulted in land made available to migrants from Europe and the colonies further south. The British resettled many Acadians throughout its North American provinces, but many went to France, and some went to New Orleans, which they had expected to remain French. Some were sent to colonize places as diverse as French Guiana and the Falkland Islands; these latter efforts were unsuccessful. Others migrated to places like Saint-Domingue, and fled to New Orleans after the Haitian Revolution.

    A young George Washington (born into the provincial gentry in a wealthy, well connected family that owned tobacco plantations using slave labor).participated in these wars, and a few years later turned on his own Brits in to create “America”; the French Revolution happened 1789.

    Despite opposition from Thomas Jefferson. Washington proclaimed the U.S. neutral in the wars raging in Europe after 1793.

    You say Jefferson pursued “American” interests abroad

    Thumb up 0