Has Obama Presided Over A Decline In America's Global Standing?

We know he isn't sold on the doctrine of American exceptionalism, but have his actions fundamentally changed the global role of the U.S.?

"Yes and no," The BBC says (in the second of a three-part series), and I agree, but it seems like American's view of themselves has changed since Obama took office and I wonder if that's the same thing.

Well this is funny ! It would seem to me that the biggest change in how we are viewed by the world took place between 2000 and 2008. We started two pre-emptive wars and adopted torture as a way of dealing with prisioners of war.
If people did not start viewing this country differently during this major mess up....they were most definately not paying attention. This includes us as American's.....I believe plenty of people were hurt, dismayed and angry because we can NOT look at ourselves the same...it is no longer possible.

As for American exceptionalism.....it is a slippery slope to consider one's self a notch about the rest. Does not promote a desire to change or to continue to achieve....if one looks at the statisics, America is falling behind on some very key issues, except of course our wealth, which is no longer supporting those who made us exceptional in the first place, our exceptional middle class.

Obama and American exceptionalism......well.....
he took out a few major threats to America and he did it pretty exceptionally......little or no loss of life and no hemorraging of money.

It is amazing to me how short the human memory seems to be......Obama is flailing around trying to set out fires in all directions.....fires where only smoke was visiable 10 / 15 years ago. And it is only his actions that are under the microscope.
If we do NOT go back and look at when and why the smoke started in the first place....we are not going to solve a thing. We are stuck in stupid !

I would put the decline back to the early 1990s.

2> Ditto.

Might be the perceptions involved.

The United States has been declining since the early 1960s (at least; I would put the zenith of American power and influence from the end of WW II to the Soviets becoming a nuclear power) but the actual decline has been very gradual. It might have become more noticeable now.

I would say that Obama has presided over a decline in standing only inasmuch as he is the President at this time.

The story is mostly the "rise of the rest."

The United States has been declining since the early 1960s

Account should be made of the fact that, between 1945 and 1989, the world was bi-polar. The US had huge influence, and allies clung closer to us for fear's sake, but about half the world was under the sway of the other power. it is now uni-polar, with rising second-tier actors.

1945-1973 was the high point of Empire. It's been all downhill since then.

I'm not so sure the world was ever so neatly divided, no matter how well that satisified the human need for categories, divisions, and a conflict between 'Good' and 'Evil'.

Although certainly that era was dominated by the struggle between two large international powers, there were several actors at that time who, although affected by the conflict, carried on with their own interests, ignoring a peripheral (to them) dispute.

It's also an American failure to adjust to the new reality that military might and covert actions, no matter how well planned and executed, are insufficient (by themselves) to promote our national interests.

2>"...he took out a few major threats to America and he did it pretty exceptionally."

Yes, and then there's this: "It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki." (from Salon, http://www.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/, but this is pretty common knowledge.)

Ordering the assassination of U.S. citizens without due process is exceptional, maybe even unprecedented. Just not in a good way.

American exceptionalism is a metaphysical, not a political, idea.

>5 BruceCoulson: Yes, it has been the fate of our first Black President to preside over a period when our decline has been made greatly visable.

What should be very clear is that if we continue to put in leadship who insist that this country is still exceptional in so far as the rest of the world, we are not going even get close to that status again....won't happen.

So if Obama sees America as falling behind, as something less than that great shining moment, I would applaud him as he will also see that there is work to be done to achieve this status and to maintain it. Any one who is claiming that we are the "best" is probably holding up a sign that says "drill baby drill" and/or still feels that we have the greatest healthcare system in the world. These people are dangerous because they see no need to change a thing, we are after all "the best".

Perhaps this defines the current struggle in America ? More so than the distrubution of the wealth. There are those who have the notion, so firmly planted in their heads, that we've achieved a status of superiorty over all others and that nothing can touch us. Why change a good thing ?
And then there are those who know better....who see the world as a changing entity and unless we invest in the change...we are going to be left behind.

>9 steve.clason:
the whole process with the Middle East since 9/11 has been an exercise in the exceptional. and not in a good way ! One would be hard pressed to point out just which action has been the worst.

>8 BruceCoulson:
Agree, gone are the days of "shock and awe".......in so far as military might. The exceptional of the future are going to be the one's who figure out how to supply energy and food to an over crowded planet....without killing half the population off with pollutants....

@krolik

True, but it's part of the political discourse, which makes it more real than metaphysical. Usually, "exceptionalism" is applied internally to account for the absence of socialism in America or the absence of episodes of extreme political violence such as those visited upon Western Europe. I'm not sure there's anything exceptional about the US as an empire. Hence, I dated the decline of Empire to coincided with the 1973 oil shock, the first significant sign that the post-war US economy, riding high on housing and credit bubbles, was vulnerable to global developments which made the Cold War (including the loss in Vietnam) a side show.

ETA: I suppose there are other elements of the discourse of American exceptionalism:

1a. The US is a meritocratic society.
1b. Intergenerational, upward socio-economic mobility is the norm.
2. American domestic politics are marked by compromises over tangible, material interests rather than pitched battles waged over intractable ideological beliefs.
3. Political institutions and public authorities comprising the political "center" are not marked by the "paranoid style" of politics found at the "fringes".

1945-1973 was the high point of Empire. It's been all downhill since then.

Well, again, you could argue that this had less to do with the fact that America was inherently better than other countries in the world, and quite a bit to do with the fact that WWII hadn't devastated us in quite the way that other countries had been.

I'd say we're looking at the wrong century if we're looking for a decline. Consider The Conquest of the United States by Spain, of which the preceding is just an excerpt.

As for American exceptionalism... it doesn't get any more "exceptional" than bitching about Bush's preemptive wars and then bragging about Obama's.

America is i think no longer regarded to the same extent as a school bully. If that is a decline in global standing then yes America has declined.

Believe me, to the outside world anyone who followed George Dubbya could only ever be an improvement.

Nods remember Obama got a nobel peace prize just for not being a cowboy.

>13 theoria:

You're right; I was being too sweeping.

>15 Lunar:
One could argue that one is the result of the other. It should also be noted that Bush was warned that one would result in the possiblility of continued problems.

Personaly...I would have started with the second method and targeted only those responsible for the deaths of American citizens....the message would have been just as strong, those who would have planned further violence would have had reason to fear and the rest of the world would have held on to an idea about America that was lost by a show of "shock and awe", the methodology of which was unwarrented.

We handed Iraq to Lybia........another fire for our current administration to deal with.......after which they will be critisized for how they've done it.
At least we can surmise that we are providing a bit of amusement for the rest of the world.....we followed Ben Lauden's plan down to the letter and continue to tear each other apart rather than address any of the the mistakes we may have made.
Not sure what the rest of the world thinks about Obama personally but I would bet that NOBODY would want his job right now !! Would take a fool to aspire to that... which is pretty evident by the front runners in the Republican Party. Pretty sure that most of the rest of them are comfortable "governing from behind".

Well, we do have an international reputation as a country more willing to bomb than to discuss. It kinda undercuts that "moral authority" thing.

1945-1973

I don't buy it. It's all definitional, I suppose, but until the wall fell the US was simply excluded from acting directly in large parts of the world. We could prop up sympathetic governments, fighting communism where the state was threatened by communism. But otherwise we were restricted—for very good reasons, like not starting a global thermonuclear war—to supporting proxies. In 2001, with only one superpower, we invaded Afghanistan, using locals but also inserting American troops directly, and following it up with a full-bore US military occupation. By contrast, in the early 1980s we indirectly armed the Afghan rebels, funneling everything through Pakistan, and that was regarded as the closest thing to a "hot" war with the Soviets we should ever get. It followed on our initial reaction—Jimmy Carters decision to—wait for it!—not send US athletes to the Olympics!

#22: During the Cold War, there was us versus them and countries could play for one side or the other; if they liked living on the edge, they could try playing the two sides against each other, but that blew up in the face of a number of dictators. Yes, right now the US can apply direct force to almost any country in the world, but it's harder to motivate countries now, and harder to motivate US citizens to approve military and financial operations.

In 2001, with only one superpower, we invaded Afghanistan

Sure, but in 2001 military forces in Afghanistan attacked us. The Soviets wouldn't have let a Soviet-controlled puppet attack us, and I suspect if forces in a Soviet-controlled country had pulled that stunt, in a week, the Soviet premier would have sent Bin Laden's head in a box to the US president. The Soviets would have had to gone to extreme measures to openly show that they had nothing to do with it. Had a non-Soviet country done it, we would have invaded them just like we did Afghanistan; we didn't hesitate to invade Panama for lesser reasons.

>23 prosfilaes:
"The Soviets wouldn't have let a Soviet-controlled puppet attack us, and I suspect if forces in a Soviet-controlled country had pulled that stunt, in a week, the Soviet premier would have sent Bin Laden's head in a box to the US president"

This is clearly a case of comparing apples to oranges ! At least there was no mention of Iraq.

#24: This is clearly a case of comparing apples to oranges !

Perhaps you could explain why.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the first time we were attacked on American soil since WWII was post-Soviet Union. The Soviet Union didn't want to provoke the US into WWIII, and kept its part of the world from attacking us directly. When the Soviet Union fell, we lost that protection, and many close allies no longer felt they needed to be nearly as close. Trading that for being able to try and beat on Afghanistan was not a net rise in power.

M.A.D. only works if the other side believes that you WILL retaliate; and if the other side has something substantial to lose.

The leaders of the Soviet Union (and the United States) would have lost a considerable amount, no matter who won in a nuclear exchange. What they had to gain by decisively winning a direct confrontation wasn't worth what they would have been risking. Hence, no direct conflict.

Vietnam is instructive. The North Vietnamese were fighting for independence from foreign rule. They were willing to make extreme sacrifices in order to unify their country and remove the foreigners. And despite an overwhelming preponderance of firepower, they won. The United States never figured out how to correctly apply their force advantage, and NV calculated (correctly), that the United States would not actually use nuclear devices and exterminate North Vietnam. (We had the capability; but lacked the will to take the risks inherent in such a decision.)

In the end, it doesn't matter if you're losing your capabilities, or are unwilling to use them, or are unable to figure out how to correctly use your capabilties. You are declining in your ability to use what you have.

Extremes from either side brings about decline, in most all situations. Today, we have extreme left ( Obama Administration ) and extreme right ( Ultra Conservatives ), therefore you are definitely seeing a great decline in everything American. Our values and our culture is in severe decline. Our economy ( 15 trillion dollar debt ) is faltering to the scary side and our nations stature as a world power never looked worse. The past three years have been terrible for the now pitiful middle class. We as a nation need to come together and make meaningful compromise to save our country! At least Clinton and Gingrich knew how to compromise on economic issues. I am very disappointed in both sides of the political spectrum; politicians need to stop public service for just their own personal gain in wealth.

If Obama is the Extreme Left, the line for extremism starts pretty close to the center.

Better put than my original reaction.

Robert

Artic, Obama was the most left leaning liberal in the US Senate when he was in the Senate and I believe he is the ultimate political person. There are also conservatives that are extreme on the right! What we now need are moderate, smart thinking and less about personal financial gain representatives in all levels of our government.

Whatever happened to the extreme middle? Where have you gone, Joe Dimaggio?

More left leaning than Bernie Sanders, who identifies himself as a socialist?

Like I said, your perspective is more than a bit skewed, I believe.

I fear a nation turns its lonely eyes to him in vain; Joltin' Joe has left and gone away.

Artic, you're entitled to have your opinion and I'm still entitled to have my own personal opinion. I still believe in free speech and freedom of thought. Thanks for your input though. I still believe the middle of the road is a better way to get our country working and earning a living again. I also, still believe in freedom of religion and not freedom from religion. Sorry, if everyone thinks I'm the one severly skewed in my thinking. It is better to hear all perspectives and not just one sided perspectives.

Woot, JaneAustenNut thinks we need to head left!

Middle of the road, here we come!

Ok, let's try the facts. Which, given the nature of even defining Left vs. Right is already laden with assumptions.

The National Journal listed Obama as the most liberal, which is where that meme gets its legs. But they also put Kerry most liberal when HE was running for president.

Also, they only put him there the year he was running. Previously he ranked 16th and then 10th most liberal. Interesting that he gets the MOST Liberal the year he runs for President. Same for Kerry.

But here, in yet another National Review (and they should know) ranking, he ranks 19th. http://voteview.com/sen110.htm

Where are your facts?

Sorry, gang, I must have riled you guys. Wow, yikes, how upset everyone is about politics tonight. The middle of the roaders will just have to sit out this discussion. Keep up the extremes and we'll see where our economy is in 5 years.

Facts? "In propaganda as in advertising, the important consideration is not whether information accurately describes an objective situation but whether it sounds true." Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism, 76

> 30

Obama doesn't seem extreme anything except extremely cool in his temperament considering the ad hominem which seems the only argument repubs can muster.

> 34

When anyone avers that we have freedom of religion but not freedom from religion it makes me wonder just what exactly they are advocating. It seems to me that, logically, freedom of religion would include the right to be free from religion. If one only is free to choose a religion, then that's not particularly free methinks.

> 35

Indeed at this point Obama would have to head left to get to the center. Obama-care is just Romney-care, and Romney still being the favorite for the republican nomination - so there is nothing left-of-center there.

So what has Obama done in 3 years that is particularly leftist?

Not riled. I just have a hard letting some unverified statements stand as fact when they are either an opinion, unsupported, or not based in reality. I am not riled at all. I am actually having fun looking this stuff up.

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who says that Obama was really born in Kenya.

The middle won't fair any better with economic processes that exceed the control of a single nation state. Better to just prepare for the slow slide downward as best one can, and as people have always done: with God, Drink, Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll.

Rush Limbaugh said he wants to kill Christians.

Of course he had to take that back when the "Christians" in question were a militia in Uganda which specialized in turning kids into soldiers and raping women.

> 41

That girl is an idiot.

And water is wet.

So what has Obama done in 3 years that is particularly leftist?

He bows to foreign dignitaries. And he writes left-handed. That's a bureaucratic socialist for ya.

Rush Limbaugh said he wants to kill Christians.

If he wants to eat Christians, then I'd be worried.

Someone on LibraryThing said that Obama eats Christians! It HAS to be true.

(Or was it Limbaugh who ate Christians?)

If someone is eating Christians, it might as well be Obama.

46 - great arguments. Yikes, additional upset folks. Wow, great discussions.

I'm not upset. I'm amused.

> 47

Nixon and Bush, Jr - and probably other POTUS - bowed to foreign heads-of-state too. My father and sister are radical right-wingers and both are left-handed.

Jokes aside, can anyone give me an example of left-wing actions by our present POTUS? I await with bated breath. Or with the redneck version "baited breath", since I had Sashimi for lunch.

53> Aside from jokes, I can't think of anything.

NB. Not just "left-wing", "extreme left".

I guess everyone on this forum thinks I'm an extreme right thinking person, but, I have voted democratic in the past and two of my favorite presidents in the 20th century were JFK and FDR. Additionally, I liked RR as another favorite president of the 20th century. I have difficulty in appreciating the current presidents arrogant stance on most all of his policies. ie, his refusal to appreciate others points of view.

How about individual mandates for health care? Well, we can ignore that they were support by Gingrich and Romney, and were seen as the conservative answer to single payer.

Gays in the military. He has destroyed the military.

He supports the complaints of OWS people. Of course he joins a majority of Americans in this.

He did TARP bailouts. Oh, wait, that was Bush. He bailed out the auto companies. (Wait, also Bush.)

He raised taxes. No wait, that was Reagan and Bush I.

Well we all know he is the most liberal person in Washington, and thus, the most dangerous. We just know it.

So arrogance is a sign that Obama is extreme left?

President Obama may actually feel sorry for the poor, rather than blaming them?

Primarily, he's a leftist because he's not a Republican. The whole spectrum of left/right, liberal/conservative has been so misconstrued over the years that you can define anyone as practically anything, depending on whose definitions you care to use.

One might consider allowing gays to be openly gay in the military to be an extreme left action if one also considers the Fourteenth Amendment to be an extreme left constitutional amendment. It's possible.

I have not heard from JaneAustinNut (which I am as well, BTW, my favorite novel being Persuasion) on just how Obama is the most leftist senator, or President. Was this just an assertion of opinion on her part, or can she muster up an argument as to why she thinks he is so far to the left. And I promise no snarky comments.

> 55

"...his refusal to appreciate others points of view." ?!?

I take that as some sort of unfunny joke. Obama's middle name should be "compromise" instead of the scary "Hussein".

Christ on a cracker, that is rich.

Go for it people, I have really managed to stir everyone up. Keep the discussion going, it may at some point in the next few years make some sense. Current administration: no ideas, no common sense and no experience in handling our current economic circumstances! Bring back Clinton and Gingrich to help us get back on good economic footing.

58> I think the term "arrogance" might capture the underlying disdain for Obama, since it's a characteristic attributed to the "liberal elite." The Harvard/UofC pedigree, cool demeanor, and tendency to lecture rubs some people the wrong way. Might was well blame it on his far leftism than viewing it simply as a matter of individual, personal comportment.

Christ on a cracker, that is rich.

Only if it's a Ritz.

> 62

You're like a Picasso brought to life in a Dali.

Question: Do you actually work for Faux Noise, or is getting things bassackwards just a hobby of yours?

. . . no experience in handling our current economic circumstances! Bring back Clinton and Gingrich to help us get back on good economic footing.

You mean bring back FDR. Neither Clinton nor Gingrich faced the economic circumstances Obama inherited on January 20, 2009. You'll recall, the economy was already shedding 500k jobs per week in fall 2008.

Still waiting for something other than an unsupported assertion.

Great folks, still blaming all of Obama Administrations short comings on the past. Can't he be held responsible for the past 3 years of failures. BO can't remotely be compared to FDR. The Great Depression and a World War were the successes of FDR, what is just one success of BO?

LOL
It always amazes me when I hear "Parrot Talk" ! It is my belief that any one who is still calling Obama a socialist or the "most" liberal President ever, is engaging in "parrot talk"......repeating mindlessly what the extreme Right is pumping out on the radio waves.
Actually Obama isn't the "most" anything....dispite the fact that a fair number of people wish he was.
When asked just what it is that Obama did that was so socialistic, few come up with any answers what so ever.

Another great squack coming from the parrots is "I Want My Country Back" O.K. so what have you lost that has been taken by Obama ? Most everything we lost has gone into the hands of the top who are NOT Democrats....

Religion....another quack quack subject.....the "War on Christianity" ? Please.....one of the the standards for running for office still seems to be that the candidate has to "profess" to be a "Christian"......I am deeply offended by that ! I don't CARE what religious belief a candidate may have or not have.....I want to see what they DO and how they ACT.
Professing Christianity has not always been a good gauge of character.....should have learned that by now.

Doesn't matter what Obama does or doesn't do....either he shouldn't have done it or he didn't do it and he should have.....straight from the authority of Right Wing radio and repeated by "Parrots"

68> Please give examples of actions undertaken by Obama that count as "extreme left" (which is how you've characterized him). Any direct answer would be appreciated.

# 68

A) You are misreading most of the posts.

B) You cannot back up your assertion. Shame on you.

>68 JaneAustenNut:
The failures of the past 3 years stem from an inability to compromise. Though Obama has made many compromises (which hasn't made his base all that happy) the Right will not even vote yes on things they previously supported OR things they themselves have proposed.

JFK ???? Seriously ? You think Obama is more liberal that JFK ?

FDR did not have to deal with Right Wing radio......

Personally, people have a right to be pissed off....they've been sold down the river. But it wasn't Obama who done it......and it won't change until people figure out how it actually did happen. If those who gave us a drubbing are able to keep the fingers pointed at Obama...they are free to go about business as usual.

>68 JaneAustenNut: "Can't he be held responsible for the past 3 years of failures"
No, he can not....not entirely, he is not a king. He works with three branches of government.

Now if you want an example of extremism, check out what the President of the College Republicans at Texas University said about Obama. THIS is extremism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/obama-assassination-lauren-pierce_n_109...

The man I work for is Republican...has no love for Obama. We were discussing Stephen King's new novel title 11/22/63. As he and I are of that era.....we remember the day well. His comment was something like this : "I was raised in a Republican household but I was taught to respect the office of the Presidency. There was almost nobody I know who was not saddened by what happened that day." "If it happened today" said he, "I would bet you anything someone would say that it took f$#K#n long enough...should have happened sooner"

Mean times !

Some people have forgotten that the Secret Service has no sense of humor about these matters. (It may be surgically removed upon admission to the Service.)

Now there are some people who respect the Office!

>77 Arctic-Stranger:
Indeed....but, from my observation, the level of disrespect has reached a pretty impressive height.....Remember the bozo who yelled "liar" when Obama was giving a speach ? or Supreme Court Justice wagging his head at something Obama said ?
For some, it is no longer about disagreement..... or even dislike, it has become hateful.

Forum members can't you express yourselves in more civil terms? All I have stated are my beliefs without accusing anyone of anything. I respectfully don't agree with the Obama Administration policies, I don't have any feeling one way or the other about the president on a personal level. Why can't we state how we feel about policies without causing such outrage on personal levels? I do not believe that JFK was more liberal than BO, in fact, I believe he was much more moderate. I was about 12 years old when JFK was murdered and I also remember the murders of Bobby Kennedy and Marthin Luther King. I respected all three men and yes they did have their detracters in the media. JFK, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were all men of accomplishment and were honored for there accomplishments. I grew up during very unsettling times ( Vietnam and Civil Rights demonstrations ) but, I believe the country still believed it was a Christian nation and not everyone was at each others throats like today. Even though 3 leaders were killed, I still believe the majority of citizens greatly respected their leadership. Today, it seems we can't even disagree about policy ( the country is hurting financially and needs wise thoughtful leadership ) of any kind without vicious attacks. What has happened to the morals of our country?

All I have stated are my beliefs without accusing anyone of anything.

And without substantiating them with any specific examples.

I respectfully don't agree with the Obama Administration policies,

Again, would you care to offer any specific administration policies that you disagree with?

"Has Obama presided over a decline . . .?"

Iʻm not sure, but other presidents have "been there, done* that."

*or ... "neglected to do that" (whatever "that" is).

I respectfully don't agree with many of the Presidents policies. Yet I don't make over the top assertions about how he is the most anything in history. Well, he is the most Black president we have ever had.

You said he was the most Leftist senator and said he was on the extreme left, but you offer NOTHING to back that up. Your spin on this, on how we are so upset sets you in good standing with the bestf DC spin doctors.

If you can back up your statements then do. Otherwise, shame on you for giving Obama opponents a bad name.

#34: I still believe the middle of the road is a better way to get our country working and earning a living again.

It's the middle of the road that got us to where we are. When the government is politically divided, that's as good a check against abuse as we can hope for. When they are united, they pass crap like the PATRIOT Act or TARP and every single ballooning budget under the roach-infested rotunda.

#47: He bows to foreign dignitaries. And he writes left-handed. That's a bureaucratic socialist for ya.

Don't forget the gulags. With the record number of whistleblowers Barack'll Bombya has gone after, even Tricky Dick would blush.

>60 Arctic-Stranger:
Now you lost me. Persuasion? Give me Emma any day. This discussion, though, has been mainly sense versus sensibility.

Emma? Give me a break! Even Austin didn't like Emma.

But what about Houston?

Houston? We have a problem?

>79 JaneAustenNut:
One can not lead those who refuse to follow. Obama never had a chance. Public statements were made to the affect that the main mission of those he needed to compromise with were going to make every effort to thwart everything he has done.
To blame Obama for our current situation is like blaming only half of the perpetrators to this mess.
In fact, IF a Republican should become President, one might just wonder what will get done if Democrats behave in the same manner that the Republicans have since 2008. Nothing will get done.....whose fault will it be at that point in time ?
Given how you feel about our current leader, I would hope you would point at the Republican at the top.....he will be a "failed" leader.
After all, two can play the game....personally, I don't think that the Democrats would have the stomach to be as consistantly obstructive but you never know.

I wonder what would have happened if Obama did not cave in on extending tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 a year ago? I understand why he did it, and why his actions are more in tune with the Republicans that I am comfortable with, but what if he had drawn the line in the sand a little earlier?

One can not lead those who refuse to follow.

When the people lead...

Absolutely agree with you Faceinbook, especially your last sentence. Those fires you refer to - to what extent do you think the republicans are acting in such a way as to pretty much ensure Obama fails? Or at least has one hell of a struggle? Ah, just read your >88 faceinbook: comment. Guess you just answered my question.

I think it is safe to say that the Republicans are doing everything in their power to make sure Obama fails, and to ensure the economy does not improve before November.

And guess what? If Romney were to be elected in November, he would have a jobs bill that is MORE aggressive than Obama's.

#92: I'm not so sure that Republican grandstanding over budgetary minutiae makes a difference to the economy. These are fights about taking credit for crap that would have gotten passed anyway. Let's not make mountains out of mole hills for the sake of feeding democratic paranoia.

>93 Lunar: "democratic paranoia."

That is interesting, since as I recall, it was the Republican's who signed some sort of "No New Taxes EVER" contract......a bit paranoid over taxes you think ? Paranoia, it seems, comes, in all shapes and sizes.

No new taxes was I think an odd choice, No new borrowing would be my choice if I wanted to convince the rubes I was a good husbandman.

No New Borrowing would sink the nation in a week. That was what the Debt Ceiling was all about.

#94: What does paranoia have to do with being against taxes? I don't think having new taxes is going to really change anything, but if you're going to complain about needing more money to fuel your reckless spending, new taxes derserve to be laughed off the stage. You don't need more money. You need to get your act together and stop misspending the loads of money you already get.

And by democratic paranoia I'm referring to Arctic going gaga saying "The Republicans are trying to sabotage Obama! They're going to ruin everything!" I only say that Democrats are as mentally deficient as Republicans are, a situation which is not improved when they point their fingers at Republicans as the standard by which to prove they're not complete idiots.

I mean, have you seriously never heard of the pot that accused the kettle of being black?

96> it would indeed, and no increase in borrowing would not be much better, mmm I think i was trying to make a rhetorical point. I am not sure what exactly :^)

Vaguely bringing back the topic of Obama his address to the Australian parliament was not heckled unlike his predecessors, what does that say about american Status?

Don't blame Obama for the U.S.'s decline in status. He's far more popular than his predecessor, internationally. And he's made the U.S. less hated. Almost likable. Unless you're a disciple of Machiavelli, and believe it is better to be feared than loved, that's a good thing.

Economically, the U.S. has been declining in relative terms for at least a decade because of the rise of China, India and Brazil. But that would have happened no matter who was President of the U.S.

>97 Lunar:
"I mean, have you seriously never heard of the pot that accused the kettle of being black?"

Really ??

That is seriously rich !! Unbelievable !

Bush = cutting revenue + madcap spending : Wars....Money mongering by a select few.

Obama = consistantly blocked from creating any type of revenue + spending for the AMERICAN masses.

I don't see pots and kettles....what I do see is "class warfare" and it isn't in the direction that the Right wants us to believe it is.

Constant infighting about politics ( Reps vs. Dems ); when can Americans see things as one nation again. If the far right and the far left don't soon come to some positive common ground on the economy, we may all be left with nothing but severe economic depression. I fear for our country: and by the way OWS group is no positive answer. I remember my parents talking about how awful it was to live through the great depression, I don't believe our nation could survive another great depression.

>102 JaneAustenNut: "when can Americans see things as one nation again"
Would be a good question to ask Congress.......Sadly, I think that the Right will be willing to see things as one nation again when the Commander in Chief is from their party. Seriously......

I wonder how different our situation would be if the Democrats would have decided to filibuster every thing Bush wanted to do.....we may have avoided the whole war, which turned into two wars....the tax cuts may have come a lot later or not at all....

Ah...if wishes were horses...........

As a country, we are more divided financially than we have been for a long time.....what we should be focused on is the middle class.....I don't see that this is the case....we are protecting the "job creators" when indeed they have created jobs in much the same way that the big banks used our money to "lend" so as to stimulate the economy.
Greed....is ugly !

OWS is probably not all that positive.....however, it is a response to all that is going on on top that is not all that positive. We are starting to look like any other country when the wealth gets top heavy......people take to the streets, they start military fractions and they create home grown terroists.....

Maybe so, but, I still hope that our country ( all politicians ) would start doing what is right for the country. Did you ever hear of a poor Congressman or President? They are all greedy and stay in their positions way too long. Whatever happened to citizen statesmen? Neither side can seem to hand over their power, glory and MONEY status!

Clinton is way richer than either Bush and now Obama is making oogles of money on his political books while in office. At least Bush and Clinton didn't try to get extremely richer while in office! If they all spent more time trying to help America instead of their own pocketbooks we would all be better off.

All Gore is now one of the richest men in America since using his global warming stance to make money on lots of "greener" projects. He continues to do this while riding in large expensive SUV's and living in anything but green mega mansions.

Where oh where are men like Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman; neither tried to game the system and become millionaires.

Wait, Obama has written a book while President? Or are you alleging that no one who has written a book should run for office? It would narrow the Republican field, at least!

Can you provide sources on the current incomes and total wealth of the former presidents you mentioned. That just sounds too much like something a radio host would blurt out, but if you can back it up, I'm willing to believe you.

Would Biden be a good counter-example of a current politician who has not used his position to acquire a fortune? I think sweeping generalizations are dangerous and tend to make things more polarized rather than less.

You know, we can't really speculate on whether Lincoln would have parlayed his years as president into a lucrative career.

Again, unsubstantiated assertions. I would bet you one of fuzzi's prayers there will be no facts presented to back up anything asserted in post 104.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/05/the-net-worth-of-the-us-pres... - This offers the net worths of the presidents.

Obama wrote the books before taking office and is simply collecting royalties, so are you concerned about the time he spending endorsing the checks? Also do you know the charitable contributions of these folks? And what does Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Bush have to do with Obama being the most liberal president ever?

"liberal" is a relative term. Obama may be liberal by American standards, but in Canada or Europe he would be considered hard-right-wing conservative-- especially for his actions in Afghanistan (increasing U.S. troops there, 3 times) and immigration (more deportations than under G. W. Bush).

Also, universal health care may be a radical left-wing idea in the U.S., but it is accepted as common sense in most other countries-- even by "conservatives".

Tic, Tic, Tic

#101: Those are some pretty deep-seated delusions there.

Poor Obama. Blocked by Republicans when all he wanted to do was vote "No" on TARP.

Poor Obama. Blocked by Repulicans when trying NOT to get the power to spend $350 billion of the TARP funds.

Poor Obama. Blocked by Republicans when what he really meant to say was that the surge didn't work and that he didn't want to do the same crap in Afghanistan.

Poor Obama. Blocked by Republicans when trying to restrain the urge to expand the Afghan war into Pakistan in an unprecedented rise in drone warfare.

Poor Obama. Blocked by Republicans from not sneaking CIA black sites to new secret locations.

Poor Obama. Blocked by Republicans when trying to press the "contract" button on the covert war machine and made him accidentally press "expand." The Yemeni king has been so disappointed.

Poor Obama. Blocked by Republicans from stopping his corporate healthcare plan from passing.

Poor Obama. Blocked by Republicans from protecting all those whistleblowers he's been prosecuting.

Poor Obama. Blocked by Republicans when he was just trying to use constitutional powers to topple Gaddafy and prop up rebels with ties to insurgencies elsewhere and who round up African blacks into camps and rape them.

Poor Obama. Blocked by Republicans when he was trying to NOT stay in Iraq past the Bush deadline with the promise of legal immunity for the troops.

Poor Obama. Blocked by Republicans when he was trying to save Awlaki (who is nothing more than the muslim equivalent of Glenn Beck unless you believe in "secret evidence") from a rogue drone and trying to save Awlaki's Denver-born teenage son from the same fate while out having a BBQ with friends.

Poor Obama. Blocked by Republicans from telling the truth about how bin Laden was ordered executed after being captured as Obama watched live instead of making up some bullshit story about bin Laden taking one of his wives as a hostage.

Poor Obama. Blocked by Republicans from not endangering Arab Spring protestors in Bahrain in the face of a regime armed by weapons funnelled into the country by Obama's evil twin (otherwise known as Barack Obama).

Stop pretending Obama is a victim. There's not a single person here who can say I didn't excoriate Bush back in the day. Can't we just agree that the Republicans did terrible things when they were in power and stop pretending Obama is beyond reproach when people tell you of the crap he's done? Pot. Kettle. Both black (in the non-rascist kind of way).

> 109

Apparently JAN has ticks.

Who the hell are you babbling at?

http://tv.breitbart.com/thrill-is-gone-matthews-turns-on-obama-i-hear-stories-th...

According to Chris Matthews ( the ultimate Obama supporter ) the president will not even place a call to anyone in the Senate or the House of Representatives. Do you think his complete lack of leadership could be a problem? How can the country come together if people in leadership roles refuse to actually lead?

This is an actual video from the democratic network's Chris Matthews; the one who had a thrill run up his legs. I guess the thrill is gone.

The country NEEDS good concrete and thoughtful leadership; especially on the economy! Who will it be? I don't have any idea, but we should pray for someone with the skill set to lead us out of this horrible economic stagnation.

Thanks for listening.

Ok, so Obama is not pushing his liberal agenda hard enough for Chris Matthews. And THAT makes him the most left-leaning President in history?

Absolutely, he just doesn't have an understanding about the economy.... he needs to open up and try to help the country. It's obvious now that all his efforts are his way or no way. Again, we need leadership like Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich that were at least open to compromise and move forward. This again demonstrates the current administrations inability to compromise on any policy what so ever. HIs way or the highway.

>115 JaneAustenNut:.
LOL......good grief.....

Obama HAS compromised....what on earth are you talking about ? There is no way on earth one can compromise with someone who is unwilling to compromise......the Right will not compromise and vote on policies THEY themselves have drafted....they help draft it, make it more to their liking and then fillibuster the vote. This is Obama's fault how ? Or should he do it entirely their way ? Cause it appears that when he doesn't, we are all sent down the highway.

Do you remember this quote ?? : "You are either with me or you are with the enemy !"

I credit this quote as being one the most, asinine, divisive things ever said by a sitting President.....in many ways it set the stage for the deep divide we are seeing today. That was BUSH who said that.....not Obama.
Don't get how anyone can spin this situation in their minds as Obama being unbending....if anything he is TOO bending....he should have told the Right to go to hell when he could......He was all about compromise........some people can really delude themselves. Or they are willing to repeat the propaganda coming from the Right wing media who has made some pretty outlandish assertions regarding this President....most of which are pure BS.

>110 Lunar:
Obama is not the victim of Republican obstructionism.......we all are ! Compromise....on SOMETHING or you are going to appear to be idiots.....and I believe that at this point in time....Most of the Right does.
Not hard to make a Republican Blocked Obama list.......they've blocked him on policies they have approved of in the past.....what does the list prove ? Other than that the Right and the Left have different policies......

Chris Matthews is certainly not a huge supporter of Obama. Just because he happens to know that Obama was born in the U.S. - which any sane person who has followed US politics should know - doesn't mean that he is a diehard supporter. Not being a birther is hardly a brave stance to take.

Fairly recently he's stated something to the effect of "the Presidents advisors respect him, but they don't like him", which is completely unsubstantiated... but he, of course, just has to make this point so he can contrast Obama with his(Matthews's) true idol, JFK. Really, anyone who isn't either from Eastern PA or named Kennedy will never escape criticism from Mr. Matthews.

>111 JGL53:
I fear I may be developing a tic.......as it is incomprehensable to me how anyone could view Mr. Compromise (Obama) as a "my way or the highway" type of leader.
Whether you agree with him or not....it is common knowledge that his base is blown away by the compromises he has made.

Geez......

Tic Tic Tic

#116: That was BUSH who said that.....not Obama.

As if there's a difference? You come on here offended that I suggest you're calling the kettle black and make this reality-challenged comparison between a tyrannical Bush and a helpless Obama, and then when I trot out a list of the murderous crap Obama has pursued unhindered (which you probably didn't even read) and you're still playing the victim? That's just downright slimey and dishonest.

"Whatever the similarities between Obama and JFK, the differences are substantial. Kennedy devoted little attention to domestic affairs, and Obama has no interest in replicating JFK’s entertaining give-and-takes with the press. Obama has yet to show bravery to match JFK’s standoff with Khrushchev, but he can boast the legislative achievements that eluded Kennedy. But this much is certain: Both presidents were centrists in the Democratic parties of their respective eras. Neither could be remotely described as radical, let alone “socialist,” as critics of both have contended. Both are ardent capitalists largely content to leave corporate America to its own devices. Both are wary of the institutional left. Both are hawkish by their party’s standards. But for all this moderation, they, like the similarly centrist Bill Clinton, who was accused of enabling drug running and murder on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, have inspired a hatred so nightmarishly disproportionate to their actual beliefs, actions, and policies that it’s worthy of Stephen King’s fiction."

Frank Rich, "How Obama's Presidency Mirrors JFK's" http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/jfk-2011-11/

Wow. Even Frank Rich gets it right sometimes.

Obama will either be reelected or the nominee of the republican party will be elected. That's our choices.

So far we only see sorry excuses for human beings as potential nominees for the republicans. Romney is their best? Good grief.

Unless the republican party can come up with someone who doesn't make most Americans throw up in their mouths then Obama will be reelected, for better or worse.

In the meantime discussions of how Obama scores as a POTUS on some ideal scale of 1 to 100 is besides the point.

Some people just don't like Obama. So the hell what?

Have we reached a conclusion yet? How about…

Bit simplistic, no?

In the meantime discussions of how Obama scores as a POTUS on some ideal scale of 1 to 100 is besides the point.

No one has led such a discussion. One can, however, weigh different criteria for whether a presidency is functioning well or not.

for whether a presidency is functioning well or not

More, "presided" doesn't imply causation. I think it's indisputable that he has "presided" over a decline in America's global standing. The US has declined; he was president. Is it his fault? No, I think not.

You can also ask the same question of the previous president, and get the exact same answer to the question.

I'll answer yes to all five.

One poll(vote) to post?

>128 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Indeed, and was he responsible? Absolutely!

Incidentally, you can't do multiple "votes" per message. We're you trying to do past presidents besides Bush?

My impression:

Johnson: Down. Nixon: Up. Ford: Down. Carter: Down. Reagan: Up. GHWB: Up. Clinton: Up. Bush: Down. Obama: Down.

Just don't think it's nearly as simplistic a question as it first appears.

>119 Lunar:
I am not personally offended by anything thus far....except maybe the idea that someone could see Obama as a "my way or the highway" type of leader.....tends to make me think that some people live in a bubble of self delusion.....
Not disagreeing with you about pots and kettles, nor their various shades of black (not meant racially). Guess the point I am making is that the 2000 -2008 administration operated as an extremely blackened pot. Instead of addressing the results created, by this misguided direction, the Republicans in power have dedicated themselves to proving that the 2008 - 2012 administration is a even darker shade of kettle.
If this wasn't the case....the failings of the past 10 years would cease to prevail to such an extent.

" I trot out a list of the murderous crap Obama has pursued unhindered"

Be very careful here.......
some individuals feel that THE most murderous decision made in decades is the decision to go to war in the Middle East....not just one war, but two of them !
Pots and Kettles go both ways after all.

Anyone have an example where this may have happened to Laura Bush ?? Seriously.....if it did, I can't remember.

http://news.yahoo.com/michelle-obama-dr-jill-biden-draw-boos-nascar-232438819.ht...

This is sickening......disrespectful.....short sighted......redneck.....typical ......and a bunch of other terms not fit for this thread.

This is akin to spitting on the Vietnam vets when they came home from Nam !

Pots and Kettles indeed ! This is beyond stupid and borders on paranoid.

This would be the same crowd, by the way, that flew the 8 x 8 ft flag from the bed of their pick up trucks in 2011, would most likely also sport a pair of brass bumper nuts to go along with the stars and stripes The theme song for this group was a country western ditty about "Not Rattling The Big Boy's Chains"
These same individuals decided that if you didn't agree with the policy to go blow an entire country to bits, you were UnAmerican.......various performers found out the hard way that to disagree meant to be unemployed.....ridiculed and told "This is our country, love it or leave it" "You are for the cause or you are against America"

NOW.....they refuse to listen to anything regarding those who were harmed in that "Great Cause". Because why ? Is there a sane reason ?
This would raise our global standing ....how ??
and how is this Obama's fault (probably the biggest question, since he must be behind it somehow.....as in : We can't support the veteran troops because Obama is President)

OR....is it, what I suspect, a lot of the division in our current government is based on ? She dared to show her Black face at a Southern "Good Old Boy" event and the message or the mission is beside the point. Just a little less veiled than on the floor of Congress.
End of rant....this stuff ticks me off. It is so blatant.....

That's odd: I thought her hubby bailed out rescued the US auto industry.

127> The US has declined; he was president. Is it his fault? No, I think not.

What's simplistic is your conclusion that the US has declined. What measure are you using. In the topic heading you say Decline in America's Global Standing, but I'm still at a loss as to what that really means. If global standing means the opinions of the citizens of other countries than I think it must have gone way up compared to Bush.

>136 theoria:
Indeed ! However, to grasp your point requires a certain amount of dot connecting. I'm not all certain of the ability, of the crowd in question when it comes to such a skill.

What's simplistic is your conclusion that the US has declined. What measure are you using. In the topic heading you say Decline in America's Global Standing, but I'm still at a loss as to what that really means. If global standing means the opinions of the citizens of other countries than I think it must have gone way up compared to Bush.

Obviously I can provide a more detailed answer, but detailed answers can often still be boiled down. I boil things down to "decline."

I think we've declined because:

1. The United States' role as the world's largest, stabilizing economy was severely compromised by us being almost entirely responsible for a massive and prolonged worldwide recession.
2. The United States' failure to deal with its debt, and consequent dependence on China, became more generally clear during the last few years.
3. The United States' economy has declined relative to some of its most important global rivals (eg., China).
4. We're losing the war in Afghanistan, despite doubling-down on it.
5. Iraq ended with a whimper, and with the United States surprisingly marginalized in a country we liberated, ruled and occupied for almost a decade. The result might be a good one, but it's not done much to make the United States respected internationally.
6. We took a back seat in the Libyan conflict, and this underlined our reduced capacities. (Understand, I think this was the RIGHT thing to do, but it underlined the reality.)

Now, again, this isn't to say that we didn't decline under Bush. We clearly did. Nor was Obama responsible for all of it, or even most. I'm just saying that we are continuing to decline.

If global standing means the opinions of the citizens of other countries than I think it must have gone way up compared to Bush.

In some ways yes, in some no. But I care more about people's perception that we are a powerful, rich and inventive country that exerts a stabilizing effect on the world's economy and politics and whom you don't mess with than with whether or not the Norwegian "street" has a favorable opinion of the administration

So to you America's Global Standing has to do with economic and military power. By those measures the US has been declining for decades, certainly since Vietnam so I don't really see the point in singling out the current president.

By those measures the US has been declining for decades, certainly since Vietnam so I don't really see the point in singling out the current president.

I realize it's hard to follow anyone's arguments from post to post when there are so many, but I'm not singling out Obama. I listed all the presidents since Nixon and gave the majority "down" ratings. In Obama's case, I would add that he holds less responsibility for it than other "down" presidents (eg., Carter, Bush). This ought to show I am not doing exactly what you say I am!

I think one can make an excellent case that we rose under Reagan, GHWB and Clinton. Reagan took us out of recession and reasserted American military might after the failure of the Vietnam years and the inconstancy of the Carter years. Ditto GHWB, who saw the US lead an astoundingly successful military effort against a major regional power. After the Gulf War nobody doubted that Americans technology was no match for oodles of ex-soviet hardware—and we did it in a country that, had the Soviet Union still been on its game, we could never have ventured. Under Clinton, while I think there was some foreign policy erosion, we had years and years of very strong economic results. This said, the years from Reagan forward were also characterized by the "rise of the rest." I see that as fundamentally good for the world and even for us, although there's no question we lost relative economic ground.

>139 timspalding:
Agree with the first part of your post.

As to the second......
We are only going to appear to the world as we see ourselves. We may have the most powerful arsonal in the world but we used it inappropriately...... we also followed Ben Lauden's script....almost to a tee. Which is a pretty clear message that in some respects, he was smarter than we were. He accomplished with a minimum amount of resources both financial and in human sacrifice, more than we did. We are faced with what is going to be a pretty dismal investment in the Middle East, having spent far more money and lost many more lives.

Are we innovative ? Not sure about that....we can not seem to get past the "me first"...or "what is in it for me" to actually develop our country as a whole. In that we are behind, probably because other forms of government demand that trains be built, technical advances be put ahead of private profit and medical care is organized so as to benefit the biggest possible segment of their society.
Our children are the future.....what is the outlook for their education and will they be able to make progress as a society ? Current educational trends and the expense in educating one's children might be an indicator that we need to do some tweeking or we will have more under educated adults in the near future than not.

We are still the wealthist country in the world and we are failing to educate our young, heal our sick and our path way to future energy innovation is ruled by big business. What kind of message is that ?

Our politices ? We may have proven something in the short term with our actions after 9/11 but we lost just as much. Kudo's to Obama.....the actions of our "Special Forces" are far more effective and will instill far more respect than our previous course. The actions of our special forces are something that the Middle Eastern culture can understand. Our bombing of Iraq was an action taken by a bully.....think they can understand that as well......the first will gain a fair amount of fear and respect, the second will bring only fear...may be O.K. for some but many Americans are not all that happy about it.
Can we regain what we lost ? Not unless we hold those who made the mistakes responsible for the actions which resulted in those mistakes. If we don't....we would appear to be a bunch of hypocrits...again, this seems to fly for some Americans....not so much for others. Who cares if you are a hypocrit if you have the biggest gun..or something along those lines. Personally, I don't see that as a "strength" for building long term respect, it is only effective until someone gets a bigger gun.....which they will try to do.

If our world wide policies reflect the internal policies of greed we are seeing right now.....well, how do you suppose we will be viewed ?

I think the world respected us when we chose a new kind of leader in 2008.......I think they are laughing at us cause we can't see fit to do much of anything he stands for.

>141 timspalding:
". Under Clinton, while I think there was some foreign policy erosion, we had years and years of very strong economic results."

So....what happened ?
If what you say is true, that would mean that Bush was indeed responsible for this current mess......if the erosion has been gradual....then how strong were our financial policies in the first place. Did we throw out "long term" strength for "short term" financial advances ?

Personally, I think we did......spent many years wondering when the sky was going to fall....nothing was real.

We kind of had a hard candy shell around us that is now revealing a rather mushy center.

141> I realize it's hard to follow anyone's arguments from post to post when there are so many, but I'm not singling out Obama.

It's too late to make that argument since you're singling out of Obama is enshrined in the title of the thread.

"after the Gulf War, no one doubted that American technology was no match for oodles of ex-soviet hardware. . . ."

It seemed to me that, from your context, Tim, you should have said it was the Iran/Iraq War that proved this. Or else, if you meant Gulf War I, you should
have said "American technology was MORE than a MATCH for
ex-Soviet hardware. --Since it was the Iraqis who were depending primarily on Soviet arms, while the Iranians had inherited a huge
arsenal of former U. S. arms that the Nixon Administration had given to the Shah's government.
There was a saying that the Iran/Iraq War proved nothing--except that obsolete Soviet weapons (the Iraqis') are superior to obsolete American weapons (the Iranians').

It's too late to make that argument since you're singling out of Obama is enshrined in the title of the thread.

Um. I didn't start the thread, or name it. And I don't expect people to attack me for saying X when I say precisely not-X.

I agree that the decline of America wasn't the complete fault of the current presient. Although, concurrently, I believe one of the greatest factors in the decline of America has something to do with the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement. This law has hurt our current jobs situation in a dramatic way and thusly, the economy. Both sides of the fence were responsible for NAFTA and share in it's unintended consequences. There are many reason's for the downfall of a nation on many levels; culturally, economically, foreign policies and domestic polices. I'm personally "almost" for voting the entire bunch in Washington out of office ( Executive, & Legislative and if we could, even the Judicary ). We need intelligent people who are willing to make the necessary compromises to bring the country back to its former status. Who that will be, I don't know... Now since both Dems & Reps have failed to come to any agreement on how to reduce spending and with no Executive leadership, only a new election can help to make the necessary decisions.

146> Sorry. Somehow I'd gotten the idea that you started this thread. Consider it an attack on @steve.clason then.

.. . . ."the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (as a factor in decline)" (147)

A funny thing about NAFTA was that more Republicans than Democrats voted for it. But a Democratic president put it through,
and the Republicans certainly don't want to give him crediit for it Blame, maybe, yes --if they're of the G O P minority that was
against it. The Republican position wheether For or against is harder to explain than the Democratic -- the latter being that
Labor Union influence among the D's would work against it.

As the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, McCain offer reasons for supporting all free trade agreements:

"Sen. McCain (R-AZ) views trade and national security as "interconnected" (AP). He voted in favor of NAFTA in 1994 and continues to firmly support the trade deal. McCain criticized his Democratic opponents for their attacks on NAFTA, and said threatening to renegotiate or withdraw from NAFTA (ABC) could "affect Canadian public opinion adversely," and could thereby cause Canada to withdraw its military support for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. In a May 2008 speech, McCain promised that if he is elected, the United States will "honor its international agreements, including NAFTA, and we will expect the same of others."
McCain sees trade as especially important as a means to open "closed societies" in the Middle East. "Its past time for nations of the Middle East to join the global economy, and for rulers to lead increasingly restive populations in the direction of democracy and free markets," he said in 2003. McCain supported Bush's plan to build a free trade area in the Middle East by 2013.
McCain has been a consistent supporter of free trade legislation, achieving a top rating by the pro-trade Cato Institute. He voted in favor of free trade acts with Oman, Australia, Chile, and Singapore. He voted to approve CAFTA. McCain also supports the pending South Korea FTA, which he says will help maintain strategic partnership between that country and the United States.
McCain supports the pending free trade agreement (FTA) with Colombia. "The stability of Colombia is more critical than ever as others in the region seek to turn Latin America away from democracy and away from our country," McCain said in May 2008." http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/candidates-trade/p14762

>139 timspalding:

I agree with most of this description, but the parting shot about the Norwegian street isn't really the most appropriate example, is it?

A "street" of much more concern is the fairly vast region of understandably angry and disaffected people resulting from the invasion of Iraq. The refugee situation (of millions) remains a very under-reported story in our part of the world.

I do not have a crystal ball, but the consequences will be with us for generations. (Think Palestinians in Jordan.) We asked for it.

An unexamined axiom of much of this thread is that a decline in America's global standing is necessarily a bad thing.

I'm not into America-bashing, and I frequent circles where I spend plenty of energy defending the U.S.

But really, we do need to countenance the idea that there are parts of the world where, in terms of "global standing," people might benefit if America just gave it a rest.

Americans, too, might benefit, as there are plenty of things to deal with at home.

I'm not an isolationist. But you have to choose your battles.

#133: Be very careful here.......
some individuals feel that THE most murderous decision made in decades is the decision to go to war in the Middle East....not just one war, but two of them !
Pots and Kettles go both ways after all.

They do indeed go both ways, an idea you seem to have trouble with. I'm not worried about having to tread carefully here since I'm on much better footing as having been a harsh critic of both administrations than you are as you keep trying to look the other way for Obama. He's a mass-murderer by any measure of the evidence and you say you're not offended by the actions I've listed just because Bush had a couple illegal wars too? That makes me wonder:

Were you a campaign worker?

I dont see Carter as a down president, His effect on the american economy seems to have been favourable from what I can gather , and while I am aware the Iranian embassy seige did him no favours with his own people, more generally his approach to middle east problems is seen here as more informed and productive than subsequent presidents. well By me anyway:^)

>152 Lunar:
I am not looking the other way for Obama.......what I am doing is trying to allow some room for him to govern. Bush was afforded the respect of being allowed to govern....even if half this country thought it wasn't the right direction. Obama has not been given the same respect. Republican's have blocked some things with good reason but it would be a very long stretch to say that they haven't just blocked things to block things. THEY said as much......and to see this as in any way productive for our country is foolishness.....it is mean spirited and short sighteded.
Would guess that if the Democrats would have given Bush the same experience during his administration we may not have even gone to war BUT, is better to sit and do absolutely nothing because some feel Obama's direction is as misguided as Bush ?
If that is the case, we are never going to do much of anything again.....because it is a fact that the Right and Left have different views ...... those who govern are supposed to BRIDGE those views, not stamp their collective feet and insist that they are correct.
Obama happens to be the sitting President....if expecting that the office of Presidency be respected and the man in office be afforded some abililty to do his job, well then fine, consider it what you like....looking the other way.....seeing Obama as a victim....What ever !

If every time one of my bosses offended me, I decided to stop production, I would have never held a job for very long.
This is NOT an either OR situation, as I see it you are asserting that one be either for them or against them, no middle ground. That is a dangerous stance to take....we should have learned that by now.
......and "offended" is an odd term to use.

From Süddeutsche Zeitung, via Worldcrunch:

The so-called Super Committee was supposed to rescue the United States from sinking in a sea of debt. The Congressional group is now being written off as a flop – mainly because Republicans want to save the super-rich from having to pay more taxes.

Obama's not responsible for this failure, nor for the deficit-limit debacle that spawned it, but he is President and this block of history is "during the Obama administration", not "after the Bush administration" and to the extent that people outside the US pay attention to the stuff we do, which is considerable, our image as a country that can responsibly deliberate and make decisions must have declined in the last few months.

So I'm going with a tentative "Yes" as the answer to the question I originally posed, though when I posed it I would have answered "undecided" to Tim's poll.

And from James Fallows' blog at The Atlantic:

The UC Davis' policeman's actions are a huge gift to the Chinese government, because this gives the Chinese government added ammunition to build a moral equivalency argument between itself and the US (not to the world but to it's own people.) I only speak from experience in China, but I'm sure in many countries, the reaction will be the same. Just another aspect in which this horrible event is a tragedy.

So, there's that. And, as Ta-Nehisi Coates points out (same magazine) "...it's worth considering that what we saw at UC Davis isn't exactly a rare occurrence in certain portions of the country", with an accompanying video of a young man being arrested and pepper-sprayed by three police officers, for jaywalking.

I'm not trying to participate in the great "America Sucks Sweepstakes" but stuff like this has to hurt our global standing. And Obama IS president.

Our economy seems to be entering into what Japan experienced in the 90s, the decade of no growth.

Our internal political systems are gridlocked.

The world economy can be brought down by Iceland and Greece.

We owe more money to China than we can ever expect to pay back if the loan is ever called.

Our idea of coming up with a solution is yelling slogans.

Decline? or SNAFU?

> 157

Yep, it's pretty tough and rough these days amongst the naked ape clan that is infesting Mother Earth. No argument there.

But regarding presidential politics in the U.S. we have two choices:

1. reelect the present guy who at a minimum seems rather sane.

2. replace him with one of several lying narcissistic empty suits.

I am just going to go with the lesser of evils. That seems the sensible thing to do.

You?

157> Decline? or SNAFU?

SNAFU I can live with -- FUBAR would be a problem.

Let's hope for SNAFU.

Much as it would hurt people, couldn't a collapse wipe out some of the stuff that needs to be wiped out? That is couldn't FUBAR be a hopeful place?

Robert

Well, the Romans, the swedes, the Mayans all tried that, and it did not work out so well for them.

>158 JGL53:
It would seem that many forget what our choices were when Obama was elected.

McCain didn't have a clue what was going on with the economy and he couldn't remember how many homes he owns. This does not exactly instill a great sense of confidence.
What the heck ???

Letters to the Dallas Morning News:

On Road to Socialism

The Kennedy regime tends to lead toward socialism, as shown in its soft policies regarding the Cuban situation and its constant concessions to the Soviet Union in nuclear-test-ban-treaty negotiations. The many failures of the administration are clearly shown to the public. The inefficiency of its policies has lost America prestige and has weakened our bonds with the major European countries.

Any person who supports John Kennedy in 1964 not only is illiterate of the means of democracy but is supporting a truly socialistic regime.

Douglas Herring, 1831 Northcrest, Waco, Tex., Sept 2, 1963

Kennedys Run the Show

The President has used his office in the last three years to take powers for himself at the expense of other branches of government.

In 1964, America will face the biggest decision in her history. If John F. Kennedy is returned to the White House, our nation probably will never again have the opportunity of a free election.

Mrs. Ben Morgan, 8607 Berry Dr., Waco, Tex., Oct. 28, 1963 http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/dallas-morning-news-2011-11/

Decline: even the culture is in decline. Ex. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/21/pelosi-bashes-catholics-they-have-this-consci...

New CBO economic news: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/cbo-stimulus-hurts-economy-long-...

Has Obama Presided Over A Decline In America's Global Standing?

Well, America's "Global Standing" was at a peak on V-J Day; MOST presidents since then have presided over a decline since that point.

Looking JUST at the economics of it (just because that aspect is so easy to quantify):

Looking around for GDP numbers, these seem to be IMF numbers:

in 1992: $6.342Trillion US GDP / $24.309T World USP; therefore, the US economy was 26.09% of the entire global economy.

in 2000: $9.952T US / $32.227T World; = the US was 30.88% of the global economy.
Note that in the Clinton years, the US share of the world economy bucked the postwar trend and actually GREW 18%, by 4.79 percentage points: a GAIN of about 0.6 percentage points per year.

in 2008: $14.369T US / $61.268T World; the US was 23.45% of the global economy.
The US share of the world economy contracted 24% in the Bush years and declined 7.43 percentage points: an annual decline of about 0.93 percentage points per year.

in 2011 (est.): $15,227T US / $68,652T World; the US was 22.18% of the global economy.
That's a decline of 5.4% from 2008; 1.27 percentage points, a decline of about 0.42 percentage points per year.

And looked at this way, there's an interaction between the performance of the American economy, and the performance of the world economy.

So yes, the US has continued to (economically) 'decline' under three years of Obama - but at something less than half the rate of our decline under Bush the Lesser.

{A note on sources:
the World Bank has similar numbers (within a couple percent), but it's like pulling teeth to get them assembled in one place. They're partially here: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD

(eg, WB has 2008 US GDP at $14.297T, and World GDP at $61.351T: giving US as 23.31% of the world economy. Pretty close to the IMF numbers.)

These IMF numbers came from a website called
http://www.economywatch.com/economic-statistics/#stats
which on its face doesn't seem to be an obviously nutty source.
The WB numbers that I was able to find serve as a check on www.economywatch.com 's numbers; the two sources don't seem wildly out of line, so either one is probably close enough for internet chat. }

> 164

I had no idea JFK was Black.

Wow.

Learn something new every day.

>166 AsYouKnow_Bob: Interesting. Good research. Nice to see facts and figures in a debate like this.

I've noticed that here in China, U.S. Presidents who are reviled in the U.S., and most other countries, are popular here. If you ask many Chinese who was the best U.S. president, he or she will probably say Nixon, because he was the first to visit China and open up relations, post-WWII. Clinton was very unpopular, mostly because of his trade policies and the "accidental" American bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, while Bush Jr. (or "Little Bush" as he is known here) was well liked. Obama they're not too sure about.

#154: Would guess that if the Democrats would have given Bush the same experience during his administration we may not have even gone to war BUT, is better to sit and do absolutely nothing because some feel Obama's direction is as misguided as Bush ?

Uh, if the Democrats had blocked Bush while Bush was in office, I wouldn't be calling that "doing nothing." You seem to think that being president means having free reign. I'm not enamoured of this sytem of government, but it's supposed to have checks and balances, and to say that stopping an official from doing something that you consider to be harmful "disrespects" the office of the presidency is just silly.

But now I think I understand where you're coming from. With this weird notion that you need to allow each president their chance to screw up other people's lives and the bizarre capitalization of common nouns like "Presidency," I think you're from some old class-minded school of thinking in which authority must be worshipped for its own sake regardless of merit. That, and I really do think you've been a campaign worker.

>169 Lunar:
Again with the.........Either/Or Black/White

NO......you are either not reading what I am posting or you are twisting what I am saying.
I have said repeatedly that a President is NOT a king.....I am looking for compromise on what is at this time a crisis in our country.
The Republicans are obstructing the process......there is a clear difference between "governing" to reach a desired goal and "obstructing" so as to get nothing accomplished. I wouldn't like the second option no matter if it was coming from the Right or the Left.

As for "worshiping"authority......you are barking up a very wrong tree !! Always have questioned authority but also smart enough to recognize the difference between questioning authority and being a pain in the ass !

168> "I've noticed that here in China, U.S. Presidents who are reviled in the U.S. ... are popular here"

Why do you think that is? Do they like the cowboys?

#170: I don't know why you're putting political compromise on a pedestal when its record has been a detrimental one, especially when it came to the Bush era.

You don't have to subscribe to a black and white mentality to realize that accomplishing just any goal for its own sake doesn't yield value-neutral results. Whether you care or not (hotdog venders might say "not"), plenty of political goals are harmful and don't become laudable just because they are the result of compromise. Your idea that congress should just "do something" is how we get junk passed like the PATRIOT Act and the TARP bill. It is utterly mindless.

>172 Lunar:
Well then....let's just continue as is.....adopt a "Do Nothing" policy....unless of course it is something that can be done without compromise. My way or the highway. Black or White. Good or Evil.

How on earth did we ever get anything done ? Would like an outline as to how to accomplish anything unless we have a One Party system.
Much like most of the rhetoric coming from the Right....there is all kinds of blather as to why we should not do anything but not much in the way of what we SHOULD do.

Just reread post #83......you claim that the "middle of the road" is the reason that our country finds itself in our current predicament. Yet you are critical of both sides.....What is your solution ?
We have made some poor compromises but so to have we been able to accomplish many good things. Not sure what your government would look like.
Perhaps we should put better people in office but that would mean that we would have to compromise on some of our personal issues and look at what is best for the whole. Sounds UnAmerican to me.

"mass murderer" "authority must be worshiped" "Political compromise on a pedestal" sounds like some of the talking heads on the Right......language without compromise ! over the top !

The two unwarranted pardons the President issued yesterday weakens America's global position and undermines our nation's resolve to be victorious in the war on terrorism.

#174: Their arrest in the first place showed the brutality and unfairness inherent in the American system. All of our allies must acknowledge that these pardons were the only just thing the President could do to start the process of overturning a long history of bias and unfairness, even outright racism.

>171 steve.clason: Republicans seem to get their China policy right- even if they screw everything else up. I think Chinese understand and respect realpolitik, which is what Republican foreign policy has been based on (at least towards China). But Chinese don't understand or appreciate the Democrats' concern for human rights. Also, Democrats appear to be more protectionist than Republicans, when it comes to trade. Naturally, Chinese don't like that. Who's going to buy all this crap we make, if Americans don't?

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-pepper-sprays-other-black-friday-shoppers-110009506....

http://global.christianpost.com/news/police-pepper-spray-walmart-customers-durin...

The Chinese are smiling today !
we will do anything to get our hands on cheap crap made in China.....

177> "we will do anything to get our hands on cheap crap made in China....."

Does China make pepper-spray? That'd be a business to get into.

#173: Well then....let's just continue as is.....adopt a "Do Nothing" policy....unless of course it is something that can be done without compromise.

Now who's adopting a black or white mentality? The choices aren't between "doing nothing" and doing any crazy thing. You might tell yourself that the government has done something good every now and then, but even if that were the case, it would still be more prudent for them to refrain from action if their only solution is to do something harmful. Even a lowly campaign worker must realize that the issues are more important than the cult of personality.

>179 Lunar:
"Lowly campaign worker".....you are assuming a great deal ! But then that is easier than actually having any ideas or solutions !
This is going nowhere......talk about pots and kettles......I absolutely deplore the Right Wing media heads for all the very reasons you are accusing me of, when what I really want is for our government to actually do what they are hired to do.....WORK. There is a big difference between obstructing policy and obstructing a person.....obstructing a person leaves no room for any policy what so ever. Ignoring this is not going to make it go away....but hey, if people want to fool themselves into thinking differently...they are going to continue to do so.
I do not and never have "worshiped" anybody....Right Left or In-between. Not a "pedestal" person either....worked with some of the most arrogant individuals in our society and learned rather quickly that most pedestal's are constructed of sand........."Cult" another catchy Right wing word.....Don't like it used lightly....deplore the fact that it was used on Romney.....it was a cheap shot.....if, for that alone, everything else aside...... I hope he makes it as candidate. Was a rediculous thing to say but works as well as "Worship" "Pedestal".....
It would help this country a whole lot if people would stop using divisive language but there seems to be a never ending supply of catchy little buzz words....funny thing is...they solve nothing, there is no future in throwing them out there that looks any different that what we have now. Obstructive, to any process.

How about this one ?? "What you throw at me bounces off me and sticks on you !"

Worked in kindergarten.....
seems we've sunk to that type of low and since the President is not as powerful as the play ground monitor.....some of us refuse to stop......even if it means the end will not be very pretty.

Well I am not a lowly campaign worker, and this discussion is making little sense to me, primarily because the one throwing the "campaign worker" taunt seems to know less than the person he is taunting.

Compromise is the essence of politics. In spite of what you see on tv, every political action, including that of refraining from action, is a product of compromise. Why? Because, in spite of lunars's finger wagging, there are actual people who hold actual power in actual offices. They do actual actions.

But no one person holds all the cards. Playing any card, in the real world, involves working with the people who hold various trump cards. Like it or not that is how it works.

There are a thousand ways to stop legislation, but only a few ways to pass it. One of the major tools for passage is compromise. You might not like it. Believe me there are times when I wish my boss could be All Powerful, and just wave a wand to get things passed. But then, it is not like he or his staff have all the right answers. Which is why I always try to respect our opponents.

As a matter of fact respect for the Office tends to show, not that someone was a campaign worker, but that they have a decent unrest sending of the system. (Although I may think some people who hold office are idiots, I do respect that a) they actually won an election,and b) rather than pontificating on a forum like me, they are putting their opinions on the public market where it matters.

#180: There is a big difference between obstructing policy and obstructing a person.....obstructing a person leaves no room for any policy what so ever.

I'm not saying anything different than the adage of "Better to let 100 guilty people go free than convict just one who is innocent." Except that in the realm of implementing government "solutions," it's more like punishing 100 innocent people for each guilty person you might catch. What it all comes down to is skepticism vs faith. I'm a skeptic in the utility of government and history backs me up. And you believe that if politicians were just nice to eachother for a change, then somehow that would result in policies that don't screw the rest of us as much.

Mid-level campaign worker?

>182 Lunar:
What do you suggest we do to keep a civilized society ? We may be headed for a government that is too big but we also seem to be a society of individuals, many of whom refuse to govern themselves. Since we are forced to exist side by side with those who refuse to exercise self control....it is sometimes in our best interest to rely on government to insure that our rights are protected from those who refuse to recognize that any one besides themselves has any.
If government is growing, it is not the government that is the "enemy" ...... it is US.....we the people.

It is an utopian thought to think we can exist without SOME form of government.....if we want to reduce the size of government, we need to start self governing......good luck with that....it is not in the best interest of those who pull the strings hoping to make large profit margins, or of the media whose popularity depends on sensationalism, to have a society of individuals who execise self control and/or think outside of the box.
Example:
I don't want to die because someone is texting on thier stupid phone.....I know there are those capable of multi-tasking but many are not....a failure to recognize where you fall in these two catagories is going to require new laws .... hence, bigger government.
This is only ONE SMALL example.....from big business to individuals who seem to think that their rights trump everyone else's we seem to be unable to control ourselves with out stepping all over someone else.
what is your solution for this type of insanity ? I fail to see how this is the fault of our government, although they seem to be using this in much the same way as big business is at this point in time, but then, it is after all, pretty easy to do so.

Should have stated that I don't want to die when someone is texting and DRIVING....although the cell phone has seemed to render people incapable of stopping their grocery shopping cart before it runs up the back of someone's ankles, completing a transaction at the check out counter until the "emergency" that required the phone to ring is settled properly....no matter how long the line of other shoppers may be, and renders the neck useless at times since looking before heading out across a busy parking lot seems to be impossible.

Cell phones = One of the MOST blatant examples of how individually important we seem to think we are and how unimportant everyone else apparently is. For crying out loud...the person next to you, the individual WITH you ceases to exist when that piece of plastic bleeps, sings, rings, toots or what ever the heck it is set to do.
Sounds trivial....but I believe we need only look at this one example to see why our government is growing. As the "cell phone mentality" seems to invade the direction this country is headed....top to bottom.

>182 Lunar: "And you believe that if politicians were just nice to eachother for a change, then somehow that would result in policies that don't screw the rest of us as much"

NO, not politicians......US....WE need to respect each other.....politians and governments are, only a reflection of who WE are.

This would be the premise of my "lowly" campaign work.

"NO, not politicians......US....WE need to respect each other.....politians and governments are, only a reflection of who WE are."

applause

I second the applause. Well put.

If Congress seems entirely bereft of statesmen, maybe it's because we don't value statesmanship.

I just want to thank Simon and RidgewayGirl for demonstrating how government is the opiate of the masses. Because we live in a representative democracy where collective responsibility is diffused across the entire voting population, any sense of individual remorse is diminished as it is thinned-out. When your government bombs brown people, you don't have to feel bad. When your government misappropriates trillions of dollars, you don't have to feel bad. When your government funnels money and weapons to drug lords, you don't have to feel bad. When your government imprisons over a million people for nonviolent offences, you don't have to feel bad. When your government props up foreign dictatorships that slaughter their civilians, you don't have to feel bad.

And then there are those that not only don't feel bad about it, but also applaud their own status as cogs in the electoral machine. What a disheartening effect government has had on them.

#183: we also seem to be a society of individuals, many of whom refuse to govern themselves

People are evil! I'm so afraid! Let's trade liberty for security. I wonder how that will work out. Let's see...

I don't want to die because someone is texting on thier stupid phone.....I know there are those capable of multi-tasking but many are not....a failure to recognize where you fall in these two catagories is going to require new laws .

So there's this group of people who are unable to judge whether they can successfully multitask texting while driving. And you decide to make a law. So instead of texting with their phone at a higher eye level where they can watch the road, your prohibition against texting while driving makes it so that these people (whom you have admitted are foolish) will instead text with their phone lower than their eye level, out of the outside view of most cops and taking their eyes further off the road to compensate and just made driving that much more dangerous.

Congratulations. You've discovered why prohibition doesn't work. Will such evidence change your voting behavior? Probably not. After all, you can just blame "the people" and call it a day.

>187 Lunar:
Excuse me....... but you just contradicted yourself in a spectacular manner....!

Again, I think you are advocating for the "sit and do nothing " policy.....I DO NOT want a new law.....hate all the petty stupid laws but I am smart enough to realize that for every ding dang niggly little law that is in place, there have had to been enough individual rights violated that some action needed to be taken to protect the safety and well being of the general population......the standard action is making a new law. Truthfully, it makes me sick that it has come to this.......
But then....your example is priceless......and is the very heart of most of our problems today. We don't give a rip...it is all about what we want to do and when we want to do it. Why do we need to be told what is safe and what is not safe ? What made our personal correspondance more important than the lives of those around us ? and why would anyone adopt the attitude that it doesn't matter if it is against the law or not "I" am going to do what I want....safety be damned ! This attitude is exactly why the government keeps growing !!!!
You can add everything to that....the wars, weapons to drug lords, Wall Street, big banks, what ever other issues you had on your list.....personal agenda is ALL....the rest of the world can go to heck.

This has nothing to do with EVIL or people being EVIL.....another favorite "buzz" word from the talking heads and everything to do with lack of responsibility (as you put it yourself). I did not use the word evil......

EVIL is now added to the list of "parrot" words.....Black or White.....Right or Wrong......Good or Evil.....it is a disturbing pattern.....when one hears such strong words thrown around. Been that way for a while and it is self destructive.

People are usually selfish, short-sighted, and ignorant/stupid far more often than they are 'evil'.

If you can ever develop a way to prevent people from being short-sighted and ignorant (we can skip selfish), then maybe your ideas of a perfect society would be workable.

#188: some action needed to be taken to protect the safety and well being of the general population

And that action has to be something that backfires and risks putting people into even more danger? Stop divesting yourself of the consequences of your choices. Your reckless crusade against plastic bleeps just increases unsafe driving behavior. It certainly can't hold a candle to the things I've listed (which you have dismissed as a "personal" agenda).

You can add everything to that....the wars, weapons to drug lords, Wall Street, big banks, what ever other issues you had on your list.....personal agenda is ALL....the rest of the world can go to heck.

That quote was priceless. So if I mention all those things which adversely affect so many people's lives all over the world, it's just my "personal agenda" and I'm telling the rest of the world to go to heck. But if someone doesn't pay enough attention to you at family get-togethers because they're distracted by a little plastic squawk box, it's the end of all human decency! Textbook narcissism.

"I" am going to do what I want....safety be damned !

Yes, you're going to campaign for any stupid law you want, safety be damned. Don't know what you mean saying I've contradicted myself, but your "safety at safety's expense" is a contradiction as clear as day.

>190 Lunar:
" So if I mention all those things which adversely affect so many people's lives all over the world, it's just my "personal agenda" and I'm telling the rest of the world to go to heck."

Not you personally.....but I do believe that the last wars were someone's "personal agenda" Why do you keep personallizing what I am saying....I don't know you.....I am not talking about YOU personally...I apologize if you feel that way...it is not intended.
This is not a personal attack on you, nor should you be resorting to making personal attacks. Once that starts nothing is accomplished, but then, maybe that is the objective ?

Narcissism over phone calls....."end of all human decency" That is NOT what I said . Again with the exaggeration. The "over the top" interpretation...allows for indignation.

Hm-m-m-m may be narcissistic to expect the person you are with to be "with" you but is it not just as narcissistic as holding up one's finger, telling the person you are speaking with to "hold on minute" I have a call coming in.

Pots and Kettles again.

You are either misinterpreting what I am saying for the sake of argument or if you truly are not understanding what I am saying......you are twisting things to make them personal....repeatedly.

Done with this.....it is my belief that people tend to get personal when they find themselves on shakey ground.

Your empire too shall fall!!!