A CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN? - -R'RIGHT !

President Clinton by removing Glass-Steagall Act that separated investment banking from depository banking was one of the main causes. The act was made in 1933 after examination of contributing factors in the "Great Depression."

not to mention the "Black Caucus" among other congresspersons who told the regulator of The Federal National Mortgage Association,(Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, (Freddie Mac), when he complained about loans being made to people in ways that seemed unsound that he could not deny the poor and down trodden "the American" dream of home ownership.

Not to mention Obama was one of the major influences in getting the NINA loans allowed..... but Im sure its much easier to only look at the selected information the media throws around and never realize how they sell hedgemony to keep us in the dark.....

World Net Daily is not news. You are projecting. Go back to school, learn to spell, and take a psych class.

didnt you know, if uni doesnt agree with it, it must not be news!!!!

I would suggest a quick review of the grammar rules while you are at it. They won't improve your reasoning ability or your capacity to engage in rational thought. I am afraid those have very likely abandonned you for life, rrawtry, but at least you will be able to communicate.

LOL!! You guys are a hoot, you who ridicule someone for their spelling or grammar, never mind what they actually SAY..... I guess if they don't appear to be as smart as YOU they're not allowed an opinion. I think sometimes you should check your OWN spelling, ( abandonned) or grammar.....

Besides, who the heck CARES whether words are spelled correctly, or the most precise grammar used? It's the IDEAS and THOUGHTS of others that are important. All of us don't have a college degree, but that doesn't mean we're stupid, or don't have a right to an opinion.

WOW that is the most pathetic outlook, not just on the U.S. but on life. I don't know where you're coming from, and I mean that in a philosophical not a geographical way. To me it sounds like either the Democrat party/communist/anarchist handbook, propaganda or someone who was seriously affected by the "every one who plays gets the same trophy" mentality.

"No more can the U.S. try to be number one, but one among the rest. There cannot be a number one" what kind of crap is that?

"No country should police others." So the world should not of fought the Nazi's in WWII? Sadam should still be in power in Iraq? The Soviet Union should still be repressing and taking over all their neighbors? There should be no borders, no laws, no rules for anyone anywhere??

I can only hope you're not a teacher of young minds in any capacity.

The nazi's were not just affecting their own people, they were invading other countries in an effort to have control of the world.... The US was not involved until our own ship was attacked by the nazi's.... It was in no way a "police action" to get involved in WWII....

To blame Saddam solely for his actions is to ignore not only the middle eastern way of life and government, but to ignore our own hand in creating Iraq itself AND giving him the weapons he used against his own people.....

The U.S. got involved in WWII when our ships, plural, were attacked by the Japanese not the Nazis. The Germans attacked our ship in WWI.
We weren't and aren't acting alone in policing in Afghanistan or Iraq, we went in Iraq on a UN mandate, and as a coalition in Afghanistan.

"but to ignore our own hand in creating Iraq itself AND giving him the weapons he used against his own people....."
So since we were wrong to give him the weapons we would of been right to let him continue to use them and or develop more? Just because someone makes a mistake doesn't mean you shouldn't try and correct it.

Not to say Iraq has gone according to plan, it was mishandled on many levels. But that doesn't mean we should quit trying, or do a 180 and let them run all over us, just think it through a little better.

wow, im sorry, i typed that way early and mixed WWI and WW II... still it has been de-classified that we knew of the attack by the japanese but did nothing to thwart it because we did not want to let them know we cracked their code........

IF we were to condemn saddam for using the weapons we speak of, then we should have done it as he used them, not decades afterwards...... its a lame excuse to invade a country for something one had their own hands in.... the UN found no evidence in Iraq having WMDs and we went in without their approval. There was no proof of any breach of the resolution and the information we got was hand picked by the administration purposely ignoring the evidence to the contrary.... Saddam had no links with Alqueda, the sarine they found was years beyond its shelf life, and much of the discourse has been over who will take saddam's place as their leader..... there is no justification for our presence in Iraq today except to "fix" what we caused......

We are number one, with or without Barack Obama, whether you like it or not. We have been number one and we will continue to be number one, and whoever the President is at the moment does not change that. So take your one world government, new world order wishes over to Europe where it will be appreciated by people who wish they were number one.

Simulacra.

Not so much. This administration is continuing the last administration's war in Iraq and now upping the stakes with their own war in Afghanistan. The bottom line is that both Bush and Obama want to expand the US empire. Take a step back and see that they differ very little on foreign policy. That can be said about fiscal and monetary policy as well. Obama = Bush. Or, if you would like it better, Obama ≈ Bush:)

How is it different?

bbar, your failure to grasp even the most basic facts about the wars President Obama inherited from the Bush Administration is startling. The invasion of Iraq was illegal and immoral, but it had a body of history behind it that President Obama ALSO inherited. Bush had essentially dismantled the institutions of a civil society in his conduct of the war. They weren't the greatest or the strongest of institutions under Saddam, but they were all the Iraqis had to stand between themselves and anarchy.

WIth a stroke of the pen, Bush wiped out their police forces and thier army, leaving the country without a security aparatus. Surely you are old enough to remember the disarry into which that society was propelled at that time.

Like it or not, our abrupt departure at that time would have plunged that country into decades of civlil war. The innocent peole of Iraq did not deserve this fate, and we had a moral obligation to protect them from it once we ad destroyed their country in our imaginary search for imaginary WMDs.

President Obama is procedingly brilliantly to date, considering the mess he inherited from the bumbling conseervative Republicans (now THERE's an inherently redundant phrase) who prededed him.

@cztheday

Remind me again why the US has to police the world. Remind me again why we have all the answers and no other country is capable of taking care of themselves.

bbar...why in the heck are you asking ME why we have to police the world? BUSH/CHENEY are the ones who decided we needed to police Iraq and Afghanistan. I worked as hard as I could to prevent them from being elected, but it frankly never occurred to me that they might be appointed by the Supreme Court.

The reason we are still in Iraq is because it would be utterly irresponsible to simply walk off the field when we were the ones who dismantled the Iraqi security apparatus and because we OWE the Iraqis BIG TIME. Bush, Sr. betrayed the resistance movement against Saddam by failing to follow through on his promises during Gulf War I, resulting in the executions of thousands of pro-American Iraqis. Then Bush, Jr. decided to fabricate "evidence" and invade Iraq without provocation, in one of the most cowardly and despicable acts perpetrated by an American President in U.S history. But our troops ARE being drawn down as promised.

We are still in Afghanistan because the Bush Administration declared victory there when no such victory had occurred and then took their eye off the ball so they could conduct an illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. Unsurprisingly, the bad guys regrouped and resupplied. That is why when one looks at dictionaries in the future and pages over to the word "incompetence" the definition will say, simply "SEE Republican Party."

So to sum up your response in one sentence: they are incapable of taking care of themselves and, in some normative sense, we have an obligation to help them. Well, if we owe them BIG TIME, as you say, then I'm glad you're okay with the cost: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/list.php