President Obama's Visit to India

It was said that Gerald Ford couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. Apparently Obama can, but it seems to be no improvement.

The Chinese were not very happy with his gum smacking on his recent visit.

Something about respect...

Of course, chain smokers like that would no doubt dis nicotine gum.

Who knows?

They were equally outraged when Putin wrapped his coat around the PMs wife.

Gum and chivalry are frowned upon.

Many here would be happy if you kept him!

However, on second thought, I would not want to bestow such travesty on another country that I admire.

Some call him an insurance policy.

Congratulations. President Obama is very well respected outside of the US. I hope you enjoy his visit.

I think you are just spouting more right wing propaganda. Passing health care reform (even though it is a Republican plan) in the face of mindless opposition by Republicans is a major accomplishment. Getting rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell is likewise. Ending two wars without starting another one, actually there are a lot of accomplishments.

When you start analyzing popularity by saying that Democrats and Republicans should be about equal, and the remainder should be split about equally, is total fabrication.

It is easy to make the public feel unsafe by criticizing the President's handling of ISIS, Ebola, immigration, Benghazi, lack of action, too much action, being ineffective, being a dictator, etc. There is nothing at all that Obama could do or not do that will not bring howls of rabid criticism down on his head, and it is clear you are listening to it.

"I think you are just spouting more right wing propaganda."

What propaganda?

I went through great lengths to take an apolitical view of the presidents popularity as seen in any number of polls. Are you charging that the polls like CNN, Neilsen, etc., are right wing propaganda?

Re-read my post. Nowhere do I specifically criticize any policy, but I do cite policies that the electoral public have opinions on and those are the opinions that drive the poll results.

If you don't want to believe the polls, then just look at the latest election results. Those elections are driven precisely on public opinion.

"When you start analyzing popularity by saying that Democrats and Republicans should be about equal, and the remainder should be split about equally, is total fabrication."

I rechecked my numbers on that and you are correct - sort of.

From Wikipedia - "As of 2010, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats (tying a 22-year low), 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents."

So, instead of a 40% - 20% - 40% split, Wikipedia calls it 31% - 38% - 29%.

However, the results of my analysis are going to be the same as long as the number of registered Democrats is equal to the number of registered Republicans.

Both parties are going to be pretty much entrenched in their belief system and therefore tend to mostly vote/support the party platform.

That leaves the rest of us as independents (yes, that is me, too). They are the swing votes that each party goes after since their base is pretty well secured most of the time.

When a president's popularity swings below 40% it is because their is a disproportionately small number of independents supporting the president and a growing number of disenchanted electorate from the president's own party that reject it.

The rest of your last paragraph is really not relevant to the argument that I was making. However, your personal belief on the favorability of the president's accomplishments appears to run counter to the majority of polled voters.

It doesn't matter whether those voters are propagandized or not because the argument rests on the poll results.

Lastly, both parties receive and distribute propaganda. It is just the nature of politics, just as it is for those that are not critical thinkers to follow it (the hardcore base). I would be disappointed if you told me that you feel that one party does not indulge in this as much as the other because politics is propaganda.

Polls are your own red herring. I was responding to your initial statement:

"We sometimes get that way toward people that disrespect our nation, our constitution, our citizens, and our laws....all while pathologically lying to us, and attempting to remake us into a totalitarian Marxist state."

The idea that it is common knowledge that Obama is doing any of this is complete nonsense. You apparently do not know what Marxism is nor what totalitarianism is. Obama was endangering his relationship with the Democratic party in order to bring Republicans into agreement on Obamacare. That was a Republican plan, designed by the Heritage Institute and implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, but when Obama adopted it there was danger that he would succeed at something so it became instantly the work of the devil.

It is certainly not Obama, but the leaders of the Republican Party and the ultra wealthy right wing backers who call the shots from the shadows that disrespect our nation, our constitution, our citizens and our laws. And Fox News was created to spread this poison. Like I said before, watch the movie, "Outfoxed," to hear them admitting it in their own words.

You are way off base.

My claim has nothing to do with the things you are citing here, so that would qualify them as red herrings.

The whole point is that Obama's approval numbers are sub-40% and how they got there is a totally different subject.

The criteria set for "failed presidency" is persistent favorability numbers below 40% and that is what the polls say.

You may want to argue that the polls are a product of propaganda, but that is irrelevant because it doesn't matter why they feel that way, just that they rate his performance as such. Every president is rated by that same set of criteria.

Now, how did I arrive at the <40% qualification? Simple, just look at historical data for past presidents. This is where the normal 40% to 60% comes from. President Obama is polling below normal.

Other factors that contribute to a failed presidency is that the opposing party rules both the House and Senate. Again, the electorate made that call.

I get the distinct impression that you are simply "insulted" by the polling numbers and feel compelled to defend his policies when his policies are not what we are (or at least I was) actually talking about. The argument is low approval ratings and how he got there is the subject of a different argument altogether.

I have to apologize. I was confusing your posts with kramarat's.

I don't have a problem with the polls. I'm disappointed in them, but I don't think they indicate much. I am myself disappointed in Obama's performance, but for the opposite reason than Republicans. I think he didn't go far enough in Obamacare, and is too cozy with Gollum Sachs. But overall I think he has been one of the best presidents we've ever had. Of course I don't expect half the country to agree with that, just as half the country did not like Lincoln much.

As far as having a failed presidency, I don't think that is something we can judge now. I think it is for historians to judge. I saw an analysis that looked at how much of a president's agenda was actually implemented. That sounds like a pretty good definition of success. One of the best, perhaps the very best, was Carter, the president that both liberals and conservatives look down on.

One of the biggest accomplishments of Obama was restoring the trust of the world in the US. Most of the people of the world trust the US to do the right thing under Obama. (Pew Research again.) Being respected for integrity rather than for being willing to send the military out on every pretext is not a small thing.

GA.

(The stupid "you have done this operation too many times" glitch blocks my voting, even though I have voted only once or twice today.)

"I saw an analysis that looked at how much of a president's agenda was actually implemented. That sounds like a pretty good definition of success."

The flaw with that analysis is that if you only have one or two things on that list it may be easy to score a 100%, whereas someone with more ambition and dozens of things on a list that gets 30% accomplished still achieves more.

That assumes that each item on the list has equal weight, but then again, that is another flaw in the analysis.

Analyzing the performance of a presidency is not anything close to pure science. No matter how you skin it there is a lot of subjective pieces to the puzzle.

There may be some other people in the world who "respect" this current administration but they are "flies on the wall" that don't mean anything. Those who do matter, like the ones waging war against us do respond poorly, i.e. aggressively, precisely because they see us as weak-kneed and incompetant. They know we won't respond with strength and authority. They do what they will.

The other significant people are our allies who don't whether to trust us or not. This present administration has been wishy-washy and inconsistent at best in their decisions. That is because they are a bunch of incompetant, arrogant boobs politically.

There is a problem with people on both sides of the political aisle. There are way too many progressives or people who don't lead. They wet their finger and put it up in the air to see which way the prevailing public opinion is and then make a decision. That isn't leadership. The public for the most part is stupid, illiterate about politics and nationalism. We need to get rid of the majority of them. Maybe the last election was a start.

Passing health care reform (even though it is a Republican plan) in the face of mindless opposition by Republicans is a major accomplishment.

Republican Plan? I hope you don't mean RomneyCare. If you do, you just adding to uninformed liberal talking points. Because RomneyCare received 550 Million from Federal Aid to subsidized this program

RomneyCare depends on the Feds to work successfully, What is ObamaCare depending upon?

I'll tell you, taxpayers when China cuts the feds off its teat

I'm not going on whether it gets subsidies or not. I'm not claiming it was a CONSERVATIVE plan. It was designed by the Heritage Institute and implemented by Mitt Romney. I'm saying it was a Republican plan that Obama chose because he hoped Republicans would support it.

But Republicans do as they are told, or face the consequences, which are severe. I'm not a Democrat, and I know they pull a lot of cr@p too, but they vote all kinds of different ways, including with Republicans. Not so the Republicans. They present a unified front. Or else.

Thinking you can cherry pick and choose while leaving leaving out pertinent information to support your stance/argument makes no sense. In my opinion it sounds nothing more than statements coming from a hypocrite.

In other words, just uninformed talking points with nothing to back it up.

Unless I'm mistaken and misunderstood you, They have a term for what you talk about and demonstrated seems to apply to you, it's called psychological projection.

It's best to be complete, cite your sources to back up your statements, is a lot more credible and convincing.

I said something that I thought was common knowledge. If you wanted more info you could always ask, or even google. No need for an ad hominem attack.

Here's more info, even though you didn't actually ask while you were insulting me.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/01/barack-obama/obama-says-heritage-foundation-source-health-excha/

Nothing is common knowledge now-a-days when it comes to politics. Even sources are questionable when referencing politics.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/

As far as RomneyCare, How it would be paid for WAS already worked out by the state(Federal Grants), unlike ObamaCare. And people that try to compare ObamaCare is the same plan as RomneyCare is truly uninformed and careless, no matter how informed they try to sound.

very difficult to find reliable sources. even the source I posted as well as your source has to be questioned/investigated.

Because of that, I try not to get evolved too deeply, but when I start, I usually do.

I have not found the Republican party to be very unified at all, but I don't recall the vote for The Affordable Care Act.

Regardless of how anyone voted it was wrong of the congress not to be able to read what they were voting on. I think that document was nearly 11,00 pages long at the time of signing.

Personally, I would have voted NO to any bill that I was willfully not given enough time to review and 24 hours was clearly not enough time.

Anyone that voted YES on that bill almost assuredly did so at the request of their party and that was not doing their constituents justice at all since they obviously could not have read it.

Imagine someone stuffing a huge contract in front of your family that you were not allowed to read, but demanded you sign... Would you or anyone you know do such a thing?

Very few people agree/sign on anything without reading it first, it's not only foolish, but down right irresponsible. And there are fools.

I may be wrong about that. I was reacting to the number of times that I have heard in news reports that some vote in Congress was settled by 100% of Republicans and a few conservative democrats. Maybe they just get the biggest headlines. Still, the trend in unanimous votes has been to increase over the past few decades in both the house and the senate.

For the ACA, in the original passage in Nov 2009, one Republican and about 39 Democrats voted for it. In the reconciled version in March 2010, no Republicans and about 35 Democrats voted for it.

http://www.healthreformvotes.org/congress/roll-call-votes/h2009-887

http://www.healthreformvotes.org/congress/roll-call-votes/h2010-165

For trends in unanimous voting, see here:

http://media.cq.com/votestudies/

And this is the type of fragmentation or polarization that is haunting our system.

It's definitely not the first time in American history that we have had such stark polarization, but it does not always act in the nation's best interest.

Correction:

For the ACA, in the original passage in Nov 2009, all but one Republican and about 39 Democrats voted against it. In the reconciled version in March 2010, all Republicans and about 35 Democrats voted against it.

Heritage bounces around all kinds of ideas. They also believe in the constitution and the power that is granted to states.

Whether Heritage came up with ideas for Romneycare is moot. It was a failure that was limited to a single small state. States should be free to try different approaches...the damage of failure is limited, and successes can be copied and implemented by other states, NOT the federal government.

Just to review: The democrat party took a small, expensive, failed experiment, and imposed it on the entire nation. It's a mess of monumental proportions.

I con't say whether Romneycare was a failed experiment, but I agree that it could be a lot better. It is still better than what we had. I prefer Medicare for all.

Anyone who's interested, I suggest you watch the movie "The Healthcare Movie," a documentary about how Canada got its healthcare system.

We have no evidence anywhere that the US government is capable of running anything efficiently and effectively. That's a pretty damning record, and reason enough for the entire thinking public to be against them forcing us into government programs.

Look what they've done with social security.

Are you OK with the government forcing you into using the interstate highway system? Dirt roads are so much closer to nature.

You want the government to both efficient and effective. Being efficient is not the highest virtue. Getting the right things done is far more valuable. Winning WW II was not efficient, but it got done. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I am often upset by the degree that the US government is hijacked by the wealthy to shovel money in their direction, but I still do not think we would be better off without the government. I'd like a better government, and I'd like the population of the US to be so virtuous that we don't need a government, but in the meantime I'll try to improve the government and population that we have.

Are you OK with the government forcing you into using the interstate highway system?

now we are onto infrastructure. you may have just passed over the line into a straw man argument.

I do agree though, that the only organization that can accomplish infrastructure is the government. And anyone reasonably can't expect them to be efficient, as long as they are effective. That is the catch.

I find it kind of amusing that kramarat uses sweeping universal statements like, "We have no evidence anywhere that the US government is capable of running anything efficiently and effectively," then you accuse me of straw man arguments when I object. How do you define "anywhere" and "anything?" Especially with the italics. Especially in an engineering forum.

But thanks for your agreement.

I am glad your amused. the straw man argument is comparing the infrastructure with health care.

I'm sure your amused about my post of psychology projection also.

I'd like a government that adhered to the duties that are specifically spelled out in the constitution...nothing less, nothing more.

You won't hear me calling for "no" government. I'm not not an idiot nor an anarchist.

Saying that the government is hijacked by the wealthy is like saying that a prostitute is raped by her client.

The interstate highway system?

Do you realize that you are talking about the system that made us into the grossest polluters on the planet, gave rise to white flight, urban sprawl, and the suburbs that president Obama hates with every fiber of his being?

I am not advocating no government. I am saying our government needs to operate as it is Constitutionally directed to do so.

Roads and infrastructure are part of that directive.

President Abe Lincoln said, "most men can handle adversity, but if you want to test a mans character, give him power." The vast majority of the men and women in our American government have failed that test miserably.

A point that is being missed here is that the government, national, state or local, has no business being in the business of health care.

They, originally the Federal Government and now the national government, was set up to do the things laid out in the Constitution, i.e. set up a judicial system that works well for all its legal citizens, protect the sovereignty of this country (borders, international commerce), respond to major disasters that the states can't handle on their own. There is nothing that says the Federal gov. should be involved in local issues of education, welfare, land acquistion, healthcare, etc.

The farther away an organization gets away from the place it is supposed to work in and with, the more ineffective it is. The only caveat to that would be an organization that is very strong in its leadership philosophy and people where they have systems set in place to guide the decision-making process at the point of use.

As kamarat pointed out; what does our government do effectively and efficiently? I can't thing of anything that includes both of those components. The more layers of beauracracy, the worse things are. We have a hugely bloated and ineffectual government organization. As Benjamin Franklin said, "the government that governs best is the government that governs least."

The constitution allows the government provide for the common welfare. I see no problem with the government seeing that there is a problem with the delivery of health care and deciding to regulate it so that health care companies cannot kill or cheat its customers. Google "health insurance rescission" to see what I mean. Yes, there were death panels, but not in the government. They were in the health insurance companies, big ones like Blue Cross and UnitedHealth. It makes sense for our elected officials to put an end to fraud and abuse. Why not?

The government doesn't have to be efficient to be either necessary or beneficial. What is the big deal about being efficient? Corporations use "efficiency" as an excuse for all kinds of financial abuse of their employees. Yes, they have to stay in business, but they don't have to use layoffs as a short term market manipulation to raise their stock price so that the CEO can exercise his stock options, all in the name of market efficiency. We can handle a little waste in the system. In fact I can argue that we need a certain amount of waste in the system to survive.

The USPS is often held up as a prime example of inefficiency. I think it is very important to have a US Postal Service, not because it is efficient, but because it provides a minimum standard that private companies have to beat in order to succeed, and its services are protected by the law.

Even though I don't claim that the US government is or needs to be efficient, I think there are things it does efficiently. Medicare is run more efficiently than private health insurance:

"Although we hear plenty about fraud and abuse in Medicare - which is a legitimate area of concern - the program is dramatically more efficient than private insurance. Medicare spent just 1.4 percent of every dollar on administrative overhead, even including money spent to fight fraud and abuse, compared with 25 percent overhead in private plans, according to Richard Kaplan, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law who specializes in elder law matters."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-column-miller-medicare-idUSBRE87E15N20120815

By the way, your quote was not Benjamin Franklin, it was Ralph Waldo Emerson.

I disagree with that quote. If it were true we would all want to live in Somalia. I prefer what Einstein said. "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." We need the government to do certain things. And then almost all of us want the government to more things, like the highway system and provide a way to enforce contracts. Where would capitalism be if there were no way to adjudicate financial disputes peacefully? That is not something you can just assume will happen in the absence of government.

And most of us want the government to do even more, like reduce pollution, put men on the moon (or Mars), enforce the civil rights of its citizens, keep track of diseases and epidemics, etc. I am in favor of having the government do things that states and individuals cannot do alone.

I agree that sometimes it goes too far, and then we have to rein it in before it gets totally out of control or suffer for it. The Patriot Act and the War on Terror (instead of a police action to get Bin Laden) were steps down that road, but I don't believe we are at that point yet.

You may think that a smaller government is better. Depends on your goals. Government ideally is simply the people coming together and hiring people to make decisions for us, deciding what to do, giving them the money to do it, etc. Sometimes the things it decides to do hijack the governmental process, but good journalism is supposed to be the cure for that. (Then bad journalism is created to hijack the good journalism, and prevent the cure.) Overall, I think the US government does an adequate job, not a good job, but OK.

The people that are making our decisions for us, (not voluntarily in my case), are at $18 trillion and counting...on TOP of what they take in taxes.

How much are you willing to pay to avoid making decisions?

Can you cite examples where he is very well respected?

I get the distinct impression that he is perceived as weak and indecisive by foreign leaders.

President Obama's foreign policy has been pretty much a hands-off policy, which would be good in some circumstances, but there have been numerous instances where a much more direct and involved approach would have spared a number of foreign policy issues (actually, disasters).

Nevertheless, I hope Suresh enjoys his visit, too.

...and what foreign leaders are respected here???

Is that not a red herring?

The original claim (and it wasn't your claim, I know) was that Obama was very well respected abroad.

The inference that no foreign leaders are respected here does not support a claim that president Obama would be very well respected outside the US.

The Chewbacca defense. A legal strategy used in an episode of South Park, "Chef Aid." The aim of the argument is to deliberately confuse the jury by making use of the fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) or a red herring. The concept satirised attorney Johnnie Cochran's closing argument defending O. J. Simpson in his murder trial.

I didn't say foreign leaders, I said respected outside the US. I know that the right wing press loves to claim that Obama is not respected because he is weak and indecisive, but that is just propaganda.

As for foreign leaders, Putin may and may not respect him, but he is certainly testing him. I personally think that Obama wins by not being provoked into a war in Ukraine. And there is one foreign leader who certainly does not respect Obama, Netanyahu. He is a close personal friend of Mitt Romney, and advised him on his policies toward Israel. Not being respected by Netanyanu is a very good sign, because there are few foreign leaders the US can trust less than him. It just means Netanyahu can't push him around and poor Bibi is pouting. I would be very worried if Netanyahu were good buddies with Obama.

Both Clinton and Obama signed agreements promising to defend Ukraine if they gave up their nukes. Not only has Obama shown that to be a hollow promise, but he made it his job to further disarm the Ukranians. You won't find a leader in any of the former Soviet countries that trusts and respects Obama, and our allies are getting tired of his perpetual spying, including the tapping of their personal phones.

Domestically, people don't understand why a constitutional scholar would snatch and hold their every communication...which is clearly illegal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573557/Flashback-Senator-Obama-pushed-destruction-15-000-TONS-ammunition-400-000-small-arms-1-000-anti-aircraft-missiles-Ukraine.html

Where in my post did I say foreign leaders?

I did cite Putin as an example of a foreign policy crisis, but his personal opinion of president Obama was never discussed and is irrelevant. I am assuming you meant the foreign public, not their leaders.

I simply asked for supporting evidence to your claim that he was very popular.

You don't need to keep selling me your position of the "Right Wing", Obama's adversaries, or the domestic/foreign policies of the president because they are a red herring to the argument.

In post 16 you said:

"I get the distinct impression that he is perceived as weak and indecisive by foreign leaders."

Here's my evidence:

Pew Research Center:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-image/

"Moreover, President Obama is still largely popular internationally - across 44 nations, a median of 56% say they have confidence in him to do the right thing in world affairs. And, while Obama no longer has the same high levels of popularity that he enjoyed immediately after his election in 2008, there has been very little change in his appeal over the past year."

Thanks, Canary. That was a good job and link.

You're quite welcome.

This is good news for India....Let's hope many agreements are struck between leaders....President Obama knows how to get things done...

He's awesome! I can't believe he got China to agree to begin thinking about cutting carbon emissions in 2030, while we start draconian measures right now.
It's like he's magic.

While China is "Allowed " to build a new coal fired plant every 8 - 10 days or so, and we have to shut ours down..They are also doing Nuclear …Maybe we should just link a bunch of Priuses together, and make clean energy. A friend just went thru India, for a few weeks as an Architect , and never saw the landing strip, or airport, in Mumbai, until they touched down, as the pollutants were so bad.. Maybe Obama can relieve that problem with his trip….Reverse Obamaism or something...

Would you mind telling me a single draconian measure we have to start? Or maybe you have a different definition of draconian than I do, a right wing propaganda one that means "Obama did it."

China has been thinking about cutting carbon for years. They installed far more solar panels than any other country in 2013. They know they have a big problem coming and they started to ramp up installation of solar panels years ago.

China is leading the way in adopting clean energy, and I'm sure they had a good chuckle after signing Obama's fluff agreement that was only intended to bolster his mindless base back home.

A single draconian measure? Sure.

Closing coal fired plants and not using our own clean coal technology in the US, while allowing our coal exports to steadily grow, and our coal to be burned in much dirtier plants around the globe.

It's almost like his big ideas aren't intended to stop global warming, but to hamper the US economy.

I've mentioned this many times here. I'll be happy to provide links again.

Can you give me a link to any information that this agreement with China actually will result in any power plant closures? I see several right wing propaganda sites that link decisions made in 2011 and 2013 to close 72 GW of coal-fired power plants to this month's agreement with China. That was because they are polluting, not because somehow the EPA knew years in advance that Obama would make a deal with China. Is that what you are referring to?

"Clean coal" is a myth. For every trainload of coal brought into an electric power plant, you would have to take out more than two trainloads of CO2 in tank cars. It wouldn't even fit in the space it was mined from. The whole idea of clean coal is PR for the coal industry. I know that there is potential technology that could sequester CO2 safely, but not on the massive scale needed for this.

There is no evidence that switching to renewable energy will harm the economy. Homeowners save vast amounts of money switching. The only variable is how long it takes for a system to pay for itself. Ironically for awhile the most wealthy have been the most likely to install solar, because they have the money up front for the installation. Recently a lot of firms now finance the whole thing, and homeowners can start saving money immediately, paying less to the installation company than they paid the electric company. We will also save in health costs from less pollution, there will be fewer wars for oil, fewer refinery explosions, fewer explosive train wrecks.

Where's the down side. What causes the doom and gloom about switching to renewable energy. Could it be that the fossil fuel industry wants you to think that the sky will fall?

Can you give me a link to any information that this agreement with China actually will result in any power plant closures?

What?

The plants are already closed, and the coal is being burned elsewhere.

Where's the down side. What causes the doom and gloom about switching to renewable energy. Could it be that the fossil fuel industry wants you to think that the sky will fall?

What?

There is no downside. It's just that we haven't invented an affordable way to do it...yet. Stupid politicians that don't understand science should stop pretending that they have magic wands.

Correct. The plants are already closed, or set to be closed. So it is not accurate to link Obama's agreement with China to any measures to close power plants.

Regarding an affordable way to switch to renewable energy, there are two price points in solar energy production. One is when homeowners and businesses benefit from installing their own solar panels. We have been past that price point for years. The other one is when utilities pay less for renewable energy than for conventional energy.

Here's an article from today's New York Times:

"Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels"

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environment/solar-and-wind-energy-start-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?emc=edit_th_20141124&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=68814683&_r=0

A little off topic here, but I was always curious to know what is the carbon footprint to manufacture a solar cell?

I have been trying to get the same answers, with no takers..What are the End Product Costs, from mining, growing of silicon, the energy costs in production, delivery costs, set up costs, engineering costs, and, as they become less than optimum, in output , and are no longer efficient enough to be allowed in the array, the recycling costs, the site closure costs etc. These are all know entities in our of our other energy sources, and are used to slam those energy producers… You know, Apples to Apples...

Thanks for the more details.

Well, if President Obama visits your country, maybe Global Warming will take hold here long enough to let this country thaw out a bit.

What you guys are going to do with all that snow he brings with him I've no idea. Send it to Tibet. I'm sure the Lama could use more.

India has lost its respect after Indra Ghandhi's death.

That would be Indira Gandhi.

I knew I will create a storm in tea cup. As far as we Indians are concerned, we are happy to invite First American President to be chief guest of our Republic Day Parade. You can view pics of past colorful parade through this link:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Republic_Day_parade#mediaviewer/File:Indian_Army-Madras_regiment.jpeg

He's still the president of the US, and I'm hoping he will appropriately represent our mutual friendship. It will be a good time.

When China attacks India Americans will run away as in Vietnam.

Let's just go so insanely off topic that the thread gets shut down, shall we?

I'm out.

What a huge difference between the way Americans react and Indians react !!! I am aware that even today skin color matters a lot in the US. Hence these kind of recations from Americans

Here's a nice summation for you. I hope it doesn't confuse you, as there is no indication of racism.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-is-worse-than-bush-in-favoring-the-super-elite-bailing-out-the-banks-and-protecting-financial-criminals/5327103

Those who are always first to invoke racial divide among many other things in any way or form are believed to be undercover racists!

I would bet that the ratio of politicians compared to the electorate that are concerned with skin color is heavily biased toward the politicians.

Unfortunately they get more votes in elections,commits genocide,get support from fanatics,from neighbouring countries,from USA calling him as "clever",ultimately from UN as "practicing democracy " and covered by "sovereignty of state" and "country's internal affair". When Hitler killed Jews who supported jews?. Centuries ago migration of people started and in each country there are different racial/religious groups.But some leaders want to have one race,one religion only in a country,but in UN all races are represented,instead small community in an island with only 1 million population is represented,while many races with even 70 million population is not represented because colonial rulers,due to geography and bribery gave importance to a single community under "democracy".

Put your faith in the UN and a global government that promises equality for all, and we will find ourseleves on a little blue ball that is ruled by less than 2% of the population.

The UN will not fix whatever angers you... they will beat you into submission or kill you.

The UN is not comprised of "nice" people.

Where are the blue helmets in the Ukraine?

Never trust the UN.

On a lighter note...SNL is now a right wing racist show, and NBC is a racist network:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/capitol-hill-cold-open/2830152

Mr.Suresh,

May I know how President Obama's Visit to India is having link to this FORUM.?

DHAYANANDHAN.S

My guess is probably none, but he is excited nonetheless.

Regardless of my own opinions, I am still happy for him.