Hello America. This is Europe calling. Congratulations for your new President! Better days are ahead for you. How about we swap Presidents with you for a year? It'll be like a student exchange, an erasmus study abroad thing or a library book loan. We'll return him to you. It's a good deal for us because so long as we don't have to vote for him it's the only way we can ever have any kind of non-White President here. Don't worry, we'll dress him well Benetton style using the old maverick beauty of European Democracy. As always, we'll let America take the wheel while we sit comfortably in the back seat. Yes we can...Swap. Old European farts!
http://thinkaloo.com
Showing posts with label president. Show all posts
Showing posts with label president. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Obama! Was it a true victory?
Don't get me wrong. I support Obama. My whole point is based on a very simple question. Is Bush who's well hated among the world wasn't the president for the last 8 years, do you think Obama would have won McCain so easily? My question isn't finished yet. IF Obama was white and Bush wasn't the president for the last 8 years what do you think the result would be?
http://thinkaloo.com
http://thinkaloo.com
Thursday, July 2, 2009
If violence breeds violence
Why don't the moderates in Iran get radicalized the way their religion would expect them to when they are the powerless minority? The media portrays the protests in Iran as a fight of Iranians versus Iranians. When it comes to the street, the Islamic government militia has the upper hand. They are in control and know it. But if a few radicalized moderates blow up a truck in a police station, behead publicly a few government officials and secret police officers, then that's a totally different story, the true beginning of fear on both sides and the spark of civil war in Iran. That's Iranians versus Iranians. Street protests is a one-sided show of power. Fear will make it two-sided and lead to the election of an Iranian Obama eventually
http://www.thinkaloo.com
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Message to Obama: Don't markets amply reward value anyway?
The message from the Obama team is that we have to reward people who add value to the economy by producing real products and services instead of rewarding bankers with sky-high bonuses and salaries which they haven't really earned nor they deserve. While I agree with the principle that people who add value to the economy should be rewarded and people who don't should not, I'm very confused by that message being repeated by Obama over and over.
Entrepreneurs who add value by innovating and creating successful new products do get rewarded very handsomely. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin etc. These people Are rich unlike bankers who get paid well but receive nowhere near the rewards successful entrepreneurs receive.
When there is no money around to give, bankers get fired. When there is, bankers get it. When a banker gets a high bonus, it's because he has earned it. When he hasn't earned it but still gets it, it is because the government gives it to him. My point is that bankers don't create money out of nothing, they get it from somewhere.
So long as they can be creating ways to get it, it sounds awkward to say that we need to reward other professionals more, unless Obama means we disperse taxpayers money directly into other professionals' bank accounts as bonuses for services or products they have not yet created or might never will. Just like he did with recent AIG and Citigroup bonuses for example. At least I can understand how that works. Hey you failed but here is your paycheck. I, the government, give it to you.
Saying however, that people who add value to the economy should be rewarded more than bankers who don't add any value, that I don't understand. Doesn't the market already reward successful people in every field anyway? What's wrong with that to want to make it work otherwise or differently? I don't understand why and how, in a merit-based market economy the reward system should change.
For the government to say we got to change the reward system in our market-based economy when the government rewards failed bankers with taxpayers' money it's confusing and convoluted. If the government gave the money to the failed bankers already, that means that they somehow deserved it, so be clear with your message Obama, what exactly do you mean when you say other workers should be rewarded more than bankers in a market-based economy that already rewards success in the market? Do you plan to play market or do you plan to subsidize the market? Or are you just saying?
You know, just stop paying high bonuses to Failed bankers and we are back to square one. Let them fail. Regulate. Simple. Stop preaching if your actions don't measure up to the message. Stop preaching about not wanting to reward failure in the system when you have already rewarded failure by keeping failed banks alive. Not cool.
Market failure and regulation is change we can understand and already believe in. That's why we elected you anyway. Be cool.
http://thinkaloo.com
Entrepreneurs who add value by innovating and creating successful new products do get rewarded very handsomely. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin etc. These people Are rich unlike bankers who get paid well but receive nowhere near the rewards successful entrepreneurs receive.
When there is no money around to give, bankers get fired. When there is, bankers get it. When a banker gets a high bonus, it's because he has earned it. When he hasn't earned it but still gets it, it is because the government gives it to him. My point is that bankers don't create money out of nothing, they get it from somewhere.
So long as they can be creating ways to get it, it sounds awkward to say that we need to reward other professionals more, unless Obama means we disperse taxpayers money directly into other professionals' bank accounts as bonuses for services or products they have not yet created or might never will. Just like he did with recent AIG and Citigroup bonuses for example. At least I can understand how that works. Hey you failed but here is your paycheck. I, the government, give it to you.
Saying however, that people who add value to the economy should be rewarded more than bankers who don't add any value, that I don't understand. Doesn't the market already reward successful people in every field anyway? What's wrong with that to want to make it work otherwise or differently? I don't understand why and how, in a merit-based market economy the reward system should change.
For the government to say we got to change the reward system in our market-based economy when the government rewards failed bankers with taxpayers' money it's confusing and convoluted. If the government gave the money to the failed bankers already, that means that they somehow deserved it, so be clear with your message Obama, what exactly do you mean when you say other workers should be rewarded more than bankers in a market-based economy that already rewards success in the market? Do you plan to play market or do you plan to subsidize the market? Or are you just saying?
You know, just stop paying high bonuses to Failed bankers and we are back to square one. Let them fail. Regulate. Simple. Stop preaching if your actions don't measure up to the message. Stop preaching about not wanting to reward failure in the system when you have already rewarded failure by keeping failed banks alive. Not cool.
Market failure and regulation is change we can understand and already believe in. That's why we elected you anyway. Be cool.
http://thinkaloo.com
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The lost beauty of George W. Bush
People made fun or criticized Bush for not being smart or intellectual enough as president. Yet what people don't realize is that Bush was probably the most skilled president in terms of being able to ask a question and embed the answer in it. If you follow Bush's rhetorical questions you will realize that they are not rhetorical at all.
The answer is always embedded in it. Here's an example the media often cite to show how ungrammatically sound Bush is when all he is trying to do is weave the answer in the question.
Bush says: "Rarely is the question asked. Is our children learning?"
It's so obvious they are not and you know that as soon as you read or hear the question. This is a great skill and an act of brilliance by Bush. It was often overlooked in favor of spotting mistakes and making fun of him. That's mistaken!
http://www.thinkaloo.com
The answer is always embedded in it. Here's an example the media often cite to show how ungrammatically sound Bush is when all he is trying to do is weave the answer in the question.
Bush says: "Rarely is the question asked. Is our children learning?"
It's so obvious they are not and you know that as soon as you read or hear the question. This is a great skill and an act of brilliance by Bush. It was often overlooked in favor of spotting mistakes and making fun of him. That's mistaken!
http://www.thinkaloo.com
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
The wisdom of relying on one president
This thought was posted on Thinkaloo on 3 April 2008 by member stormy
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
---
Have you ever thought to challenge the wisdom of relying on one president as the final authority on all matters of government? Why not vote for as many different presidents responsible for different policy areas as there are cabinet members? It is more democratic, more engaging and can be more efficient if authority and decision-making is clearly delineated! What is your opinion?
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
---
Have you ever thought to challenge the wisdom of relying on one president as the final authority on all matters of government? Why not vote for as many different presidents responsible for different policy areas as there are cabinet members? It is more democratic, more engaging and can be more efficient if authority and decision-making is clearly delineated! What is your opinion?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Presidents and beautiful women
This thought was posted on Thinkaloo on 27 March 2008 by member etleve
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
---
I was reading about Sarkozy (the frend prime minister) visiting UK with his gorgeous wife Carla Bruni and I was thinking how important is for a president to be married to a beautiful and elegant woman.
I believe that it helps a lot being to someone that media would find very attractive
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
---
I was reading about Sarkozy (the frend prime minister) visiting UK with his gorgeous wife Carla Bruni and I was thinking how important is for a president to be married to a beautiful and elegant woman.
I believe that it helps a lot being to someone that media would find very attractive
US Presidential Elections, who can use who?
This thought was posted on Thinkaloo on 21 March 2008 by member monica
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
---
I am interested in your opinion on this. If Hillary wins, she could use Obama in her cabinet, possibly as Secretary of State or at the Department of Energy to oversee the transition to a green economy. If Obama wins, however, I don't think there is much room to use Hillary. Their positions on health care and foreign policy in Iraq are different. Which do you think is more likely to happen?
If it's true that Hillary and Obama are a dream ticket, would you vote for Hillary so that you can also get Obama's talent or would you go for Obama with less chances to use any of Hillary's experience?
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
---
I am interested in your opinion on this. If Hillary wins, she could use Obama in her cabinet, possibly as Secretary of State or at the Department of Energy to oversee the transition to a green economy. If Obama wins, however, I don't think there is much room to use Hillary. Their positions on health care and foreign policy in Iraq are different. Which do you think is more likely to happen?
If it's true that Hillary and Obama are a dream ticket, would you vote for Hillary so that you can also get Obama's talent or would you go for Obama with less chances to use any of Hillary's experience?
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Better dimplomacy on the Middle East
This thought was posted on Thinkaloo on 2 November 2007 by member obamaforpresident
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
---
I think Barack Obama has the best ideas on how we can shape a better Middle East which can help get ourselves out of the Iraqi mess.
When it comes to foreign policy he seems to always come with ideas that are different than any other candidate out there.
I list 3 of his ideas when it comes to US diplomacy in the Middle East that I think are very unique and promising.
Obama has been the only one with the guts to offer opportunity for real diplomacy than stubborn war rhetoric that will get us nowhere in the Middle East.
1. Talk to Iran, offer economic & security incentives
This is seen as almost heretical by some, but think about it. If you don't talk with your enemy about peace with your enemy, who will you talk it with?
2. No preconditions in the talks
It would be nice if Iran could suspend its nuclear weapons activity first, but realistically they never will because we say so or because we threaten them with war.
We need to be realistic, if we don't want more war either, we got to enter the talks in good faith.
3. Tie the above with progress on Iraq
Make no mistake, Iran's influence on Iraq is tremendous. If we get the Iranians on our side in Iraq, only then can we talk about realistic dates for out troops to withdraw
I can go on, but I want your views on these 3 specific ideas. I think they merit a lot of debate and need to be supported.
Look forward to your comments & thoughts
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
---
I think Barack Obama has the best ideas on how we can shape a better Middle East which can help get ourselves out of the Iraqi mess.
When it comes to foreign policy he seems to always come with ideas that are different than any other candidate out there.
I list 3 of his ideas when it comes to US diplomacy in the Middle East that I think are very unique and promising.
Obama has been the only one with the guts to offer opportunity for real diplomacy than stubborn war rhetoric that will get us nowhere in the Middle East.
1. Talk to Iran, offer economic & security incentives
This is seen as almost heretical by some, but think about it. If you don't talk with your enemy about peace with your enemy, who will you talk it with?
2. No preconditions in the talks
It would be nice if Iran could suspend its nuclear weapons activity first, but realistically they never will because we say so or because we threaten them with war.
We need to be realistic, if we don't want more war either, we got to enter the talks in good faith.
3. Tie the above with progress on Iraq
Make no mistake, Iran's influence on Iraq is tremendous. If we get the Iranians on our side in Iraq, only then can we talk about realistic dates for out troops to withdraw
I can go on, but I want your views on these 3 specific ideas. I think they merit a lot of debate and need to be supported.
Look forward to your comments & thoughts
Friday, February 22, 2008
My Ideal President for 2008, Series 1
This thought was posted on Thinkaloo on 23 October 2007 by member liz
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
---
Where have all Gore prezis gone and where are all the Gods?
Where are the street-wise clowns to fight the rising odds?
Somewhere after midnight, in my wildest fantasy that is
The new prezy is racing on the thunder and rising with the global heat
It's gonna take Superman to sweep me off my feet
Need no Bush no more, he's far too smart for my feet
Need no Clinton either, 2 much for the price of one, if you know what I mean
Need no Mister Olabama either, he's just a sweet-home Alabama kid
Johnie Ed has too shiny a haircut, and so does the Mitt Romney kid
Giulani has the shinny part too but no more hair to cut through
Nothing rhymes too perfect for me, so I better vote for Me
Support My campaign Thinkalooers, it's not as silly as you may think :)
Visit www.thinkaloo.com, our new online community where you can share your thoughts and knowledge, discuss your ideas, ask questions and meet smart people
---
Where have all Gore prezis gone and where are all the Gods?
Where are the street-wise clowns to fight the rising odds?
Somewhere after midnight, in my wildest fantasy that is
The new prezy is racing on the thunder and rising with the global heat
It's gonna take Superman to sweep me off my feet
Need no Bush no more, he's far too smart for my feet
Need no Clinton either, 2 much for the price of one, if you know what I mean
Need no Mister Olabama either, he's just a sweet-home Alabama kid
Johnie Ed has too shiny a haircut, and so does the Mitt Romney kid
Giulani has the shinny part too but no more hair to cut through
Nothing rhymes too perfect for me, so I better vote for Me
Support My campaign Thinkalooers, it's not as silly as you may think :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
