Heres to hoping the Chinese continue to finance our country!!

Good luck to you and remember you heard it here first!!

What proof do you have to support that claim...

No less than CBS news itself agrees with me

Bullshit...nothing the president has done (or not done) proves that he "wants to find some middle ground"...of course we stand for democracy and the president has already made that point (in the Cairo speech, among others)...

Ah yes Obama stated "So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other" (Kind of like the situation in Iran)

" America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. "

(Again Iran anyone? Was that peaceful?)

" But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed;" (Which gets a person shot in the head in Iran...or did you not see the footage Mr President)

"Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere." (Except Iran)

"And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people." (And ones that were not elected and are not peaceful...such as in Iran)

If cannot see the hypocrisy in those statements from his Cairo speech then we have nothing further to discuss on that issue

Exactly how has the media been "suppressed"? And the government has taken over a microscopically small segment of industry to keep those businesses from completely collapsing, not because of some ridiculous socialist fantasy...

Fairness Doctris back in play, Obama buying an "infomercial" on ABC ,repeated criticism of one network, Fox....none of those things are very presidential nor appropriate. I thought you liberals all believed in free speech? I guess it depends on who is talking

As for taking over a small segment of the economy...are you serious? GM? Chrysler? The feds said they were too big to fail right? Why not help out Toyota, Nissan, VW, etc? Oh I forgot. Those are foreign companies right? Or is it just more a matter of their not having a unionized work force given that the labor unions are in Obamas back pocket. I guess no American workers work at foreign auto makers plants here in America right? Oh wait it turns out they do. I suppose those American jobs are not as important as the jobs at unionized American automakers who quite frankly...make crappy cars.

Since when did we decide that that government should pick winners and losers in business? Whatever happened to capitalism and the free market deciding? Government is not the solution...its the problem

Many of these detainees that ARE terrorists will likely go free.

What proof do you have to support that claim...

Either we stand for democracy (which requires free elections to exist) or we don't. It appears Obama wants to find some middle ground which doesn't exist.

Bullshit...nothing the president has done (or not done) proves that he "wants to find some middle ground"...of course we stand for democracy and the president has already made that point (in the Cairo speech, among others)...

I do think that suppressing the media and taking over the society's industries makes the citizens reliant on the government for their livelihood and information.

Exactly how has the media been "suppressed"? And the government has taken over a microscopically small segment of industry to keep those businesses from completely collapsing, not because of some ridiculous socialist fantasy...

And what proof exists that by simply putting them in American prisons, they will automatically be released on the streets of our country? By the way, you do realize that not everyone being held at Gitmo has been proved to be a terrorist?

I think you missed my point. I realize that some of them are not terrorist. The problem is that for the ones are or the ones we heavily suspect are, we will have difficulty proving it. Once they come here they will have the same protections in the court room that any American citizen would have. Under that high level burden, it will be difficult if not impossible to convict most of them. Throw in the additional problem of national security secrets that no American juror can hear and it gets even tougher. Many of these detainees that ARE terrorists will likely go free.

It is hypocritical that Obama's administration has adopted the Budh policies regarding even more detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan

Oh please, the fact that he is not spouting empty platitudes is hardly indicative that he is a hypocrite...how sad that he isn't rushing in like a blunderbuss, huh? Especially when it would be counterproductive...it is so painfully transparent that some are using this issue as a way to smear the president rather than looking for a constructive way to actually help the Iranian people...

Either we stand for democracy (which requires free elections to exist) or we don't. It appears Obama wants to find some middle ground which doesn't exist.

Are you breathlessly awaiting to be dragged off to the reeducation camp?

Oh that's lovely, what's next, a Nazi comparison?

I did not say that. I do think that suppressing the media and taking over the society's industries makes the citizens reliant on the government for their livelihood and information. That is a necessary step but not sufficient to move towards a more socialist system

Its not a scare tactic to have a legitimate concern about dozens of terrorists and combatants being released into the United States.

And what proof exists that by simply putting them in American prisons, they will automatically be released on the streets of our country? By the way, you do realize that not everyone being held at Gitmo has been proved to be a terrorist?

He is a hypocrite.

Oh please, the fact that he is not spouting empty platitudes is hardly indicative that he is a hypocrite...how sad that he isn't rushing in like a blunderbuss, huh? Especially when it would be counterproductive...it is so painfully transparent that some are using this issue as a way to smear the president rather than looking for a constructive way to actually help the Iranian people...

I would assume that our personal freedoms are next.

Are you breathlessly awaiting to be dragged off to the reeducation camp?

Obama does not want to condemn Ahmadinejad and company because he is very similar to him in his tactics as I wrote in my blog.

Oh that's lovely, what's next, a Nazi comparison?

As recently as a couple weeks ago, many Democrats were still against closing the base.

Of course...sadly, NIMBY is a very misguided, but effective, motivator...

As far as Gitmo is concerned, was it not the Democrats who initially refused funding to close the base?

As recently as a couple weeks ago, many Democrats were still against closing the base.

Quit trying to make this seem like only the Republicans are worried about closing the base .Many Democrats are worried as well.

Any actions the US has taken against Iran have been "repaid" to us by the Iranians ten times over but thats not really the point.

The point is the President of the United States is the leader of our country. He is supposed to project power, leadership, confidence and resolve. Obama seems very adept at apologizing for all our "sins." Yet when it comes time to stand up for democracy and freedom (like in Iran) he is mostly silent only mentioning the rights of the people to demonstrate. Even the French and British have condemned the election but not America. He is a hypocrite.

I would prefer that the President of the United States tell the world that we are for liberty and the right of self-determination. Unfortunately if he does that he would be lying. His administration is clearly not for self-determination. The federal government continues to take over companies in major industries, pursue government sponsored health care where no one would have any choice but to be a member, squelch any disagreements in the media,etc. I would assume that our personal freedoms are next.

So I suppose Obama does not want to condemn Ahmadinejad and company because he is very similar to him in his tactics as I wrote in my blog

The closing of Gitmo is hardly a far right issue.

No, but Republicans are using the issue to scare people, yourself included obviously...

Obama has made several apologies throughout Europe and now the middle east.

Oh, like mentioning how the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran in the 50s? Would you prefer the president praised that action...

Obama has made several apologies throughout Europe and now the middle east. You may call it silly but they were still apologies. I have seen no apologies from the middle eastern countries that sponsor terrorism.

When we are seen as apologists in that part of the world it makes us look weak. We are even more likely to be attacked. That is why the GOP and many Americans have a problem with what Obama is doing.

AS you can see the president's party has traditionally lost 28 seats in the House and 4 in the Senate so its not out of the realm of possibility

I was talking more about the Senate than the House...because of the particular circumstances of the 2010 elections, it looks like the Dems will have an excellent chance of picking up seats rather than losing them...

Not all Republicans ran that far to the right so your question has a flawed premise.

Not really, I'm talking about the way the GOP is acting now, in how they are using the closing of Gitmo to try to scare people and of course the silly talk of Obama's "apology tour"...

Oh, good luck with that...

If the economy is still struggling in 2010 its very possible the Repucblicans pick up seats in both houses. AS you can see the president's party has traditionally lost 28 seats in the House and 4 in the Senate so its not out of the realm of possibility

Than why does the GOP continue to use that strategy...

It was the best strategy for George Bush to use to win. The far Right were loyal to the Republican party and Bush could count on their support not only in votes but also party organizaition efforts, fundraising, etc. There was no way Kerry or Gore would ever win that group so why not use them.

Not all Repbulicans ran that far to the right so your question has a flawed premise.