As per the original question "I'm genuinely curious how this administration will handle the issue. How are they going to protect our safety without walking all over the liberties of other nations?"

Some of my guesses...

1. Blame George Bush and his failed policies
2. Make excuses of only being in office for a little less than 3 months
3. Change/divert the topic
4. Boycott the next olympics
5. Appease North Korea by giving/selling them MORE nuclear technology (a la Bill Clinton)
6. Issue more "stern" warnings
7. Organize a community protest and have people go door to door and get signatures to send to the United Nations or to North Korea
8. Hope Kim Jong-il dies
9. Shoot some hoops with Gordon Brown, Brad Pitt, and George Clooney
10. Nothing, just keep reading their own press clippings on how much the world loves (and obviously respects) the Obama administration
11. Finally admit "We have no clue what we're doing"

Gone are the days of Bush's failed "cowboy/go it alone" military strategies, or are they? The chants of "Bring our troops home now" rarely if ever heard anymore. I haven't heard a peep out of the Code Pinkers since the inauguration. The Iraq conflict merely written off as a "distraction" by Obama, claiming the real "war on terror"... ooops... my apologies for using an term no longer used in the white house (according the Secretary of State Hillary Rodham-Clinton http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/kralev-diplomacy/2009/Mar/30/clinton-us-no-longer-uses-war-on-terror/)... whatever it's called now, is in Afghanistan (according to Obama).

"Barack Obama made an impassioned plea to America’s allies to send more troops to Afghanistan, warning that failure to do so would leave Europe vulnerable to more terrorist atrocities."

"But though he continued to dazzle Europeans on his debut international tour, the Continent’s leaders turned their backs on the US President."

"Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister."

"Just two other allies made firm offers of troops. Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12. Mr Obama’s host, Nicolas Sarkozy, refused his request."

"Mr Obama – who has pledged 21,000 more troops to combat the growing insurgency and is under pressure from generals to supply up to 10,000 more..."

"The presidential charm offensive failed to move fellow Nato countries."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6032342.ece

Considering it's highly unlikely Bush forged Obama's signature on this piece of legislation, I would say the buck stops with Obama.

(From the article) "Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases."

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

You may want to look up in a dictionary to see what the word "any" means.

Inability to comment on the topic as usual I see Fanta. I don't blame you for not wanting to in this case.

"He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Unfortunately, smoking or not smoking isn't the issue. The lie/broken promise is.

You obviously misunderstood. Last I checked a sales tax is still a tax. "Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not ANY (my emphasis) of your taxes."

You smoke and make less than 250K... your taxes were raised.

What part of "any tax" don't you understand?

"Read my lips, no new taxes". An infamous quote by George H. W. Bush at the 1998 Republican National Convention. After elected Bush raised taxes. In 1992, Bush lost his bid for re-election which I believe can be partially or mostly due to this broken promise.

Flash ahead to September 12th, 2008 and Barack H. Obama.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

"Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases."

Joe Biden: "No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised," Joe Biden said, "whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1


Good luck Obama supporters in defending this one.

Who would care what happens in SC, except the idiots that live there?

It's okay by me if you feel the need to lash out with homosexual overtones when embarrassed instead just being mature and accept personal responsibility by saying "Yes, you're correct, I shouldn't be giving spelling lesson when I can't spell certain words correctly either". To each his/her own I suppose.

I believe those who can't spell the word "independent" correctly probably shouldn't be giving spelling lessons.

I'll just use the same arguement/excuse typical Obama supporters use when the news isn't favorable for him (without the whiney inflection).

"He's only been in office for a little over 2 months, give him time" (for the numbers to drop). He's running out of people to blame and companies to take over. Enjoy the moment while you Obama supports can. If the economy is going to get worse before it gets better (according to Obama), along with other lapses in judgement due to inexperience and ignorance, I speculate the only positive numbers that will be discussed about Obama here will be his sweetheart book deals.

In regards to the polls, I suppose if I were a gun shop owner/ammo dealer and polled, I too would say the economy is heading in the right direction.

An afterthought addition concerning hypothetical legalization. Another market for Monsanto to get in on?

"Do we not have the same effects to the individual and to society in the throes of a full blown drug war?

It's a safe assumption that any product (legal or illegal) that alters perception will have effects upon both individual and subsequently society. Yes, the effects would still be the same regardless if there was a "full blown drug war" or not (If I understand your point correctly).

I would submit that prohibition itself didn't cause or make anyone into anything. The negative results are all based upon the individual choices people made to engage in said activity. The consumer, manufacturer, and dealer all made cognitive decisions to actively participate (knowing or at least having a good idea of the consequences if caught). A good example of Prohibition era social Darwinism (between those who get caught and those who don't). Al Capone and Joseph Kennedy, Sr. Both indulging in the same illegal act of bootlegging. The smart (and lucky) never get caught (or directly punished), regardless if they're in the big leagues or the minors. In prison, I would agree with you that one may have to become violent to survive; However, prison is only the result of being caught/convicted of making poor personal (and illegal)decisions/choices. The theme song from the television show "Baretta" keeps going through my mind.... "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time".

"Reduction in inhibitions". I've heard the same claims (being better drivers) under the influence of alcohol as well. The fear of getting caught gives a valid/logical reason to be paranoid or phobic. I believe any impairment, endangers others regardless. Whether it be drugs (illegal or illegal) or texting on a blackberry/talking on a cell phone. People make enough mistakes already, any impairment only serves to increase the likelihood of more mistakes (with the possibility of even more detrimental effects in the longrun).

"Now, the question would be, could you open a pot bar?" Since smoking is pretty much banned as an act (not as a substance) in public places, I suppose it would have to resemble more of a salad bar (ingesting instead of smoking). My other thought was a church that used marijuana as part of it's religious services (like the native american use of peyote). I'm confident that idea has been tried (and shot down) before though.

As per drug and alcohol treatment facilities. You're absolutely correct one can drink themselves to the grave if they choose too. Though this may be considered sematics... there are times when others (E.G. bartenders, friends, ect.) do restrict/cut off consumption to prevent possible self-injury though. Aside from that, I agree with you. On the other hand, just because the state gives it's nod of approval for unlimited induglence doesn't lessen the detrimental effects to the individual or society (the costs for treatment). I see no benefits in legalizing one more mind altering substance . It just gives the state one more legal substance to incarcerate people with (E.G. Driving under the influnce of pot) and take their money. Treated basically the same as alcohol. By legalization, I would submit it would be just one more way for the state to control people. The best way to stay in power... just give the people what they want (which is appeasement not leadership). Wouldn't it make more sense to fight the one world government/new world order/globalists with as clear of mind as possible? (My "gotcha" moment )

"Tax revenues and treatment facilities". I don't know about the rest of you; However, I would like to keep as much money as possible that I earn. One more tax is just one more tax. More government control, more governmental intrusion, larger government (one more government program). The laws of unintended consequences. As with the consumption of alcohol, the government gets their cut and you end up pissing money down the drain for a few hours of impaired judgement/temporary escape from reality.

"Saving family farms". On a large agricultural scale the closest thing I would suggest would be growing hemp (instead of marijuana). Not to imply or infer that you don't know the difference between the two; However, I'm surpised at the number of people who don't (including politicians).


http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hemp

Anyone know how much electricity a teleprompter consumes if never turned off for four years?

Looking at the total number of posts by some here... it would be interesting to calculate their computer carbon footprints, electricity wasted, and the money that could have been saved by posting less (and being more considerate for the enviroment). Fortunately we're not all graduates of the Al Gore college of Hypocrisy.

Not true.

I don't want to put any more people out of work due to my consumption reduction. People who work for the electrical companies and those connected with the production of electricity (railroad companies that deliver coal, the miners, ect). Those who manufacture, sell, and repair computers. Not to forget the truckers who deliver the computers. The people involved in the petrolium industry that fuel the trucks that deliver the computers. The list can go on.

Actually, I believe you should ask what part of this is true instead. The answer to that would be very little. When in political trouble (like Luiz is) or gaining political support... pander to the lowest common denominator and seek to place blame elsewhere with over-generalized/vague statements. He's merely rendering a personal opinion to help take the heat off himself by scapegoating. He could have named specific names to support his claim but didn't. The only difference here "Zionists/Jews" was subsituted with "white people with blue eyes" is all.

I submit... How do we know that this "crisis" wasn't created intentionally by VERY rational individuals (of different eye colors and races)? The call for a world currency has been gaining a lot of traction as of late. As per Luiz's claim of not knowing any "black or indigenous bankers". Perhaps Obama can introduce Luiz to Franklin Raines of Freddy and Fannie fame for economic advice. I don't know any Asian bankers either; However, I'm confident they do exist and some being very powerful/influential in the global marketplace.