web analytics

Ahh the sheer modesty

By Patrick Van Roy On February 23rd, 2012

Obama makes bold reelection prediction

US President Barack Obama made no bones about his chances of reelection in an interview with America’slargest Hispanic radio service, saying: “I’ve got another five years coming up.”

Quizzed by Univision’s Eddie “Piolin” Sotelo about his failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform, Obama replied: “Well, first of all, Piolin, my presidency is not over.

“I’ve got another five years coming up. We’re going to get this done,” he continued, according to a transcript of the interview, which was conducted on Tuesday and broadcast on Univision Radio on Wednesday.


God Help Us

28 Responses to “Ahh the sheer modesty”

  1. He has a good sense of his prospects given he weak opposition.

  2. I agree, Mahons.

  3. His prospects will improve as Bernanke’s money printing continues to manipulate a false economic recovery. If severe price inflation holds off long enough the Kenyan’s campaign will go all out the claim the credit. Have the buckets on standby for that one.

    If it hits big enough, soon enough, he might be in trouble.

  4. $6 a gallon gas in Florida yesterday, 3 years of unemployment over 10%, GDP growth at 1%, he can’t win

  5. “3 years of unemployment over 10%, GDP growth at 1%, he can’t win”

    The general feeling is that the economy is improving on all fronts. In that continues, he’s in.

  6. no the NEWS is saying that the economy is improving, those of us living in it KNOW it’s not.

    Alright lets give it to you this way, Obama inherited a shit economy, his promis was to make it all better. In the over 3 years he has been President name his policy that has improved the economy ?

  7. Troll –

    Obama has done nothing to improve the economy and many things to harm, but that’s irrelevent.

    Bernanke’s astronomic money printing is flooding the economy now and indiators are looking up. It’s a false, manipulated recovery which is resulting in price inflation and will result in another bust down the road, but very few people know this. If things appear on the mend generally Obama’s campaign will get a massive boost from it.

    Of course, there’s one candidate, a student of von Mises and an Austrian School scholar, with the intellectual tools to analyse the economy and demolish any argument Obama can put up.

    Genuinely, he’s the only man in the race who understands what’s happenening to the economy and can therefore describe it properly.

  8. Here we go again, Bernanke’s money printing has hit the Midwest:

    Kansas City Fed: Manufacturing DEMOLISHES Expectations Again

    (By the way, anyone who has read the repeated explanations on ATW of why there would be, and now is, a manipulated recovery will not have any expectations demolished, of course. As usual, it is the Keynesians whose expectations fail time and time again)

    Manufacturing continued to expand in the Midwest, the Kansas City Federal Reserve announced this morning.

    The composite index measuring manufacturer activity in the tenth district surged to a reading of 13, the highest reading since last June.

    This is good news for Obama and bad news for the GPO.

    Factories further ramped up activity in February and – despite a drop off in export orders – were more optimistic about future output and hiring than at any time in the past year […] Manufacturers surveyed were generally upbeat about the coming six months, with the order backlog and volume of order sub indexes hitting highs not seen in more than 12 months.

  9. I think that Ron Paul engages a lot of people with his sensible economic ideas, but he disengages people with his altruistic foreign policy ideas. I’ve spent a while thinking about Paul’s approach to foreign policy, and while I think his ideas would work if the world were perfect, unfortunately it’s not. America has signed defence treaties and alliances, and it is obliged to honour them, because no nation can operate as an island in such matters. In the long run, you can’t be neutral on foreign policy.
    If Paul would just recognise that, then perhaps he would stand a better chance at the Presidency, in my opinion.

  10. Tom – I watched Paul in the debate last night and he had the best lines about many issues. And he soaked Santorum two or three times at least. If I thought his solutions made any sense and he didn’t have his weird background (see for example his strange newsletters) he might very well be a contender.

  11. It’s ironic that Pete Moore goes on so much about Trotskyite/Marxist infiltration of mainstream politics when it’s his man who of all the field seems to be closest to the anarcho-yuppie notions of late 60’s/early 79’s in foreign policy at least.

    He’s a very likeable man; compared to Romney he’s honesty personified and compared to Sanctorum he’s boringly sane.

  12. Noel Cunningham –

    In foreign policy, Ron Paul’s position is Old Right/paleoconservative. For the greater part of its existence, the US has been neutral/isolationist/non-interventionist. It’s the traditional conservative position, contrasting with the progressive interventionism which began with Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

    It’s a sad fact that many conservatives don’t understand that the interventionism they support is Progressive in its roots and that the neo-cons who spread it to and through the GOP were Marxists and Trots. While the latter changed allegiences, their methods remained the same and foreign interventionism derives directly from these far Left roots.

  13. Absolutely, Pete, “For the greater part of its existence, the US has been neutral/isolationist/non-interventionist”.
    – But, for the greater part of its existence, any potential enemies which the USA might have had, lacked the practical means to attack the USA on its own soil. The world simply was not anywhere near as interconnected back then as it is now, air travel being an obvious example. 9/11 simply could not have physically happened 100 years ago, no matter how intent an enemy state might have been on launching such an attack. Even 20 years ago, the idea of an enemy “cyber-attack” knocking out computer communications would have been absurd – today, it’s a plausible threat. Defence ideas have to move very quickly with the times.

  14. no the NEWS is saying that the economy is improving, those of us living in it KNOW it’s not.

    Troll – are you saying that the corporate media are lying to you? If so, watch this because it shows where the 1% live, and most of them live within 1 hour’s drive from Washington DC. What’s more, Keiser isn’t lying:


  15. Tom Tyler –

    9/11 could not have happened a century ago, but the US still suffered terrorism. In 1910 the LA Times building was bombed. In 1920 the Wall Street bombing happened. In the latter, Italians were suspected of the act which killed many people.

    Of far greater significance, in my view, is simply that the welfare-warfare state is highly profitable for special interests. While 9/11 could not have happened (and let’s not allow the devastating outcome to obscure that they were airplance hijackings, something which has been going on for decades now), a century ago the US was much less interventionist and the federal government much less controlled by corporate and special interests.

  16. Actually Pete that is a crock. We Yanks have punished the Barbary Pirates in Libya, Algeria and Tunesia in 1801-1815, had the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 to prevent Further colonization of South America, fought slavers in Africa in 1820’s, sent military to Indonesia and China in the early part of the 19th Century, Opened japan by Commodore perry in the 1850′, and spanked various baddies around the globe all well before Teddy Roosevelt.

    Look, like anything in the course of human events we have had triumph and failure, success and fiasco, idiots in charge and great men. On the whole I think out record stacks up pretty nicely.

    Paul doesn’t grasp the modern world is a dangerous place, and abject isolationism is a bad as reckless intervention. Hence his failure to resonate with the voters.

  17. Mahons –

    For the 130-odd years pre Teddy Roosevelt, you have a relative handful of skirmishes and hardly any foreign bases or entanglements.

    Today you are at permanent war in many lands, you’re deeply involved in the internal affairs of many nations and you have a significant and permanent military presence in countless places beyond your borders.

    That’s quite an escalation.

    Some say that that it’s all necessary because the world is so obviously dangerous. I suspect they have it the wrong way around.

  18. The modern world is a dangerous place, and US military Inc. makes it more dangerous than it would otherwise be. If the US didn’t have troops in Afghanistan, those troops wouldn’t be getting killed and the natives wouldn’t be getting droned. When one examines the ‘threat’ of Iran to the US, is it just not possible for an ordinary American to consider the US threat to Iran? Which of the two is greater given the (over 30?) US military bases around Iran?

    Now one reads of the ‘threat’ from China? The only threat is an economic one which the US handed to China i.e. the $2 trillion of US currency (US government debt) which China holds owing to the mass relocation of US corporations to China.

  19. the Kenyan’s campaign

    So you are a Birther now Pete?

  20. Obnoxious, egotistical, floppy-eared twit.

    Obama?…………..Nah, I was referring to Drumcondra Bertie!

  21. Pete – Russia, China and Islamic States are indeed really just Benign Disneylands if we would only let them have their way.

  22. Pete

    The Marine Corps hymn’s first line includes the line “…to the shores of Tripoli ”

    Please read up on what that means. It dates from the very earliest days of the American ” state “. The Americans wanted to be let alone. The world does not always work that way.

    The world has become a lot smaller since then.

    Speak softly, and carry a big stick.You will go far.

    The great Teddy Roosevelt said that. Good advice then, good advice now.

  23. Phantom

    Are the Iranians entitled to have a big stick ?

  24. No.

    They are an illegitimate and unelected regime run by insane men that is a danger to the region and to the world.

    They are invited to come to their senses before it is too late.

  25. “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.You will go far.”

    COLM! What’s wrong with you, lad?

  26. Colm’s lost a little off his fastball

  27. No I haven’t – it’s just that sometimes I like to defy my caricature 😉

  28. Mahons –

    The point isn’t any other country having its way. Washington simply can’t abide one inch of the globe not being run to its satisfaction.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.