Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
Summers and Geithner made that decision in the White House though, not the President. Romer came to them with a 1.8 trillion dollar proposal which was soundly rejected. Then she offered 1.2, and that was rejected. Which is dumb, and Summers/Geithner were awful decisions.
His point is that Obama isn't the almighty liberal God-emperor of the country, and as such has failed miserably to maintain absolute control over Congress. And since he couldn't make all of the progressives' wet-dreams come true, he needs to be held accountable.
STEAM: Gasman1220 | My Backloggery
I said good day.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
This just isn't true. Obama was Mr. Bipartisanship from the get-go, in word and in practice. (Attempts, at least.) I find it very difficult to listen to much of the campaign and early-term Obama and not come away thinking that he honestly believes in concept of the 'loyal opposition'. It was Congressional Repubs that weren't operating in good faith, because they consistently stonewalled him no matter how genial he was.
If anything, it's one of Obama's 1st term failings that it took him so long to realize that that's how the game was being played, and his policy suffered for it.
Though in fairness, I don't know that any president in history has faced such uncompromising refusal to engage as a policy from the opposition party.
Congress had always had a decent record of compromise and bipartisanship until around the middle-part of Clinton's terms.
Probably Lincoln, maybe Wilson?
Maybe, maybe not. It certainly would be risky to go into bully-pulpit mode too soon, but GOP politicians were already using the extreme fearmongering rhetoric before he was even elected, if that was any indication.
I am reminded of a portion of that Altantic article about Obama that I linked in here a while back. Here's the bit that speaks to this very thing. (Obama, Explained)
The failure by the founding fathers to anticipate and account for the existence of political parties (which is kind of shocking given the deep divide between the federalists and anti-federalists at the time) is to blame for a lot of the systemic problems in our current government.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
I don't understand why people are so down on the ACA here. There are a number of provisions of the bill designed to reduce costs. For example:
1. Accountable Care Organizations - by coordinating care across providers, duplicative treatment and testing should be reduced.
2. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute - by studying patient outcomes from different treatments, we should get better information one what treatments are and are not cost effective. There are also other research committees established to evaluate the effectiveness of different forms of care. Even though none of their reccomentations are binding, the research will hopefully influence what insurers will cover.
3. The individual mandate will bring a lot more good risk into insurer risk pools, allowing for the creation of functional individual and small group insurance markets.
4. Medical loss ratios literally impose caps on profit percentages for insurers.
5. The anti-discrimination rules and cadillac tax should both make it harder for insurers to market "platinum" plans that provide very high levels of benefits to select individuals.
I understand that these and the other provisions of the ACA are aimed at insurers, not providers, but if you change the amount that insurers will pay to providers, you will influence what kinds of care providers actually provide. It isn't perfect, but it also isn't nothing.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
I have found that "feeling that he failed you" is typically (though not always) based on a Green Lanternist view of what the President can actually accomplish. There are severe constrains on what he can do, and the electoral incentives facing him are often very different from those that individual members of Congress face.
I think it's often as invalid to criticize him failing you as it is invalid to criticize him for positions he hasn't taken.
The problem is that a lot of younger people got their idea of "how the government should operate" from the Bush Administration, not really realizing that was an aberration. We've also ceded a lot of power to the executive from the legislative which is a problem.
There were a series of issues that the administration could have done better, which were within their control. They did a bad job on healthcare and they missed their chance to change the way finance works. To be fair, on the latter, Geithner convinced Obama that their job was to make the banks feel confident, and not to change the way they operate. Obama's a lawyer, not an economist after all.
My understanding is they knew and feared parties but instead of creating hard rules for them they tried to convince america not to form them. Apparently they were not aware how impossible that was.
My Band "The Wicked Girls" http://soundcloud.com/the-wicked-girls/sets
60s and the creation of Medicare/Medicaid.
George Washington warned against political parties.
The first election he wasn't a part of was a horrific slugfest between two political parties, parties that two of the founders were the heads of fyi.
Well bully for them, what do the courts say?
Accusing a founding father of not being perfect?
Tell me, Captain Carrot, if that is your real name, when did you begin worshiping Satan?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
You want Obama to have the right to execute an American citizen without trial? Really?
Then they'd be secret societies. I'd prefer political party's to stay overt.
Tuesday.
Excellent, welcome to the club. Next week we're learning the new secret handshake.
Bad way to frame the question.
You want Rick Santorum to have the right to execute an American citizen without trial?
Most people trust their guy, not that I'm accusing Magus of this just in general, most people trust their guy and think he'll only do it when necessary or not at all.
But every power you give the president is transferable to every president after.
I'd rather no one outside of a battlefield (i.e. actual war, not shooting your own soldiers or prisoners) get killed without a trial.
If it does become more used, then I'll be more suspicious.
Agreed.
No, because he is terrified of gay people -> people who terrify him must be terrorists -> gay people are terrorists -> drone strikes on the gays.
Well, that's kind of the point. I doubt Santorum would start executing homosexuals, but you shouldn't give to a president you like powers you wouldn't want a president you don't to have.
So, what option do you suggest? We can't try them in absentia, thanks to habeas corpus. And just saying "well, we can't go after them because they're American" is not an option for a myriad of reasons.
Pretty much this. You seem to be suggesting that if a full terrorist cell was formed by Americans starting committing terrorist attacks in a another country we couldn't really do anything unless they picked a fight.
It's silly. If someone is an enemy combatant the military should be able to engage them without being engaged first. When the enemy can be an american citizen that doesn't change. It's not something I want to happen but its the truth. The rules need to be defined because this wasn't a problem before. We also need to define exactly what warfare is.
Did we go to war with Libya?
My Band "The Wicked Girls" http://soundcloud.com/the-wicked-girls/sets
I suggest not dropping hellfire missiles on American citizens currently living in countries we are not at war with. If you cannot get the country to arrest and extradite them then send in the CIA black ops. Right now the current administration has arbitrarily murdered three American citizens without trial, and Obama's response is that he has a right to kill anyone engage in "terrorist activities" without any form of judicial review or even defining what terrorist activities means. Which I think is what scares me the most.
It is not the fact that he is killing American citizens. It is the fact that he has legitimized it and acted like it is not a big deal. If he had kept his mouth shut, sent in black ops, and maintained deniability I would be much less concerned. Instead he has flaunted his ability to execute American citizens without trial, and act as if there is nothing inherently wrong with what he has done. Between that, and his continued defense of the Justice department he is giving Bush a serious run for his money when it comes to dangerous crazy in the oval office.
If these guys were so dangerous and could not be extradited, nor arrested, and we had documented proof there were a clear danger to American citizens then yes, send in the black ops. We should not be hellfiring convoys in Yemen because some asshole runs an anti American newsletter. Printing that blowing yourself up is awesome, and instructions to making bombs should not be a reason to blow you up, and have people show up to collect severed fingers to help identify who they just blew up.
So your problem is killing American citizens in a way that creates accountability?
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
I mean, maybe I'm just cold-hearted but I'd much rather someone get shot in the head, citizen or no, then let them continue to live and eventually cause the death of many people.
Though I will agree that you don't want to give a president you like powers that a later one you don't like could abuse, which is why it's very important to define what is and is not terrorism.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Yes, if you can safely detain a dangerous individual, you should but being an American citizen doesn't give someone a free pass from being whacked when they are so dangerous that the law can't safely detain them. After all if the only way to stop the crazy, gun-totting killer, in the homeland, is to well kill him. Should the cops say "well fuck got to let him go because we can't whack this murderous bitch since that's denying him a trial?' Or should they say "well can't take him alive and he is too much of threat to be allowed to roam the streets, better ice the fucker for public safety?"
It really does seem like the big fuss is that they told everyone about it.
Except that they basically did the equivalent of a hellfire missile with Osama Bin Laden and no one bitches that he didn't get a trial, so who the fuck knows.
/sarcasm
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass