And we're making overtures to Iran. Which is great, because I'd love to travel to Tehran and Persepolis someday. Persia just seems so exotic.
Watch this http://www.ricksteves.com/iran/. It's interesting as hell. Made my rather ignorant father change his mind about Iran when he saw the whole thing.
Wish I'd known about that earlier. Last time it aired in my area was the 22nd.
I must say that Obama has himself an excellent strawman in Limbaugh. The Republicans are just playing into Obama's hands by sucking Limbaugh's cock so much.
Savant on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2009
It's not a strawman if he's truly running the show (which, effectively, he appears to be doing).
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Any word on DADT yet? I know Obama plans to address it early, but I don't know when.
It will be repealed...at some point. I think they want to do it via legislation so the next President couldn't just repeal it.
It is incredibly unlikely that a president would re-instate DADT after it was repealed. When the gays come out and yet the army fails to fall apart, they'll have no justification left for the policy other than blatant bigotry, which, one hopes, is going out of style.
It's more likely that it's just not Obama's top priority right now. Which is fair, although unfortunately reminiscent of every other time gays have not been the democrats' top priority.
Any word on DADT yet? I know Obama plans to address it early, but I don't know when.
It will be repealed...at some point. I think they want to do it via legislation so the next President couldn't just repeal it.
It is incredibly unlikely that a president would re-instate DADT after it was repealed. When the gays come out and yet the army fails to fall apart, they'll have no justification left for the policy other than blatant bigotry, which, one hopes, is going out of style.
It's more likely that it's just not Obama's top priority right now. Which is fair, although unfortunately reminiscent of every other time gays have not been the democrats' top priority.
Any word on DADT yet? I know Obama plans to address it early, but I don't know when.
It will be repealed...at some point. I think they want to do it via legislation so the next President couldn't just repeal it.
It is incredibly unlikely that a president would re-instate DADT after it was repealed. When the gays come out and yet the army fails to fall apart, they'll have no justification left for the policy other than blatant bigotry, which, one hopes, is going out of style.
It's more likely that it's just not Obama's top priority right now. Which is fair, although unfortunately reminiscent of every other time gays have not been the democrats' top priority.
I can't wait until DADT is done. The military guys I know think it's going to ruin the military. When I ask them if our military is the best in the world, they say hell yeah. I proceed to point out to them that the British have openly gay servicemen and their military still manages to be good, so our military must not be the best if we can't even live up to the British standard. I actually believe them when they say it's going to cause problems, but while in their eyes the problem is gay servicemen, in my eyes the problem is homophobic servicemen. I'll be happy if any soldier that can't obey the order to tolerate gays is dealt with swiftly and harshly and dishonorably discharged. It's long passed time we stopped tolerating and encouraging bigotry in the ranks.
We were liveblogging stimulus voting yesterday and it kind of got out of hand and the momentum carried over to today a little bit.
To be fair, there was also a good 5'ish/+ page debate on the value of paying for / attending higher education for the average person, but that spawned its own thread.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Any word on DADT yet? I know Obama plans to address it early, but I don't know when.
It will be repealed...at some point. I think they want to do it via legislation so the next President couldn't just repeal it.
It is incredibly unlikely that a president would re-instate DADT after it was repealed. When the gays come out and yet the army fails to fall apart, they'll have no justification left for the policy other than blatant bigotry, which, one hopes, is going out of style.
It's more likely that it's just not Obama's top priority right now. Which is fair, although unfortunately reminiscent of every other time gays have not been the democrats' top priority.
I can't wait until DADT is done. The military guys I know think it's going to ruin the military. When I ask them if our military is the best in the world, they say hell yeah. I proceed to point out to them that the British have openly gay servicemen and their military still manages to be good, so our military must not be the best if we can't even live up to the British standard. I actually believe them when they say it's going to cause problems, but while in their eyes the problem is gay servicemen, in my eyes the problem is homophobic servicemen. I'll be happy if any soldier that can't obey the order to tolerate gays is dealt with swiftly and harshly and dishonorably discharged. It's long passed time we stopped tolerating and encouraging bigotry in the ranks.
Exactly- it'll cause problems the same way that integrating white and black soldiers caused problems - the bigots shit their pants over it for a while, then either got used to it or got kicked the fuck out.
Any word on DADT yet? I know Obama plans to address it early, but I don't know when.
It will be repealed...at some point. I think they want to do it via legislation so the next President couldn't just repeal it.
It is incredibly unlikely that a president would re-instate DADT after it was repealed. When the gays come out and yet the army fails to fall apart, they'll have no justification left for the policy other than blatant bigotry, which, one hopes, is going out of style.
It's more likely that it's just not Obama's top priority right now. Which is fair, although unfortunately reminiscent of every other time gays have not been the democrats' top priority.
I can't wait until DADT is done. The military guys I know think it's going to ruin the military. When I ask them if our military is the best in the world, they say hell yeah. I proceed to point out to them that the British have openly gay servicemen and their military still manages to be good, so our military must not be the best if we can't even live up to the British standard. I actually believe them when they say it's going to cause problems, but while in their eyes the problem is gay servicemen, in my eyes the problem is homophobic servicemen. I'll be happy if any soldier that can't obey the order to tolerate gays is dealt with swiftly and harshly and dishonorably discharged. It's long passed time we stopped tolerating and encouraging bigotry in the ranks.
Exactly- it'll cause problems the same way that integrating white and black soldiers caused problems - the bigots shit their pants over it for a while, then either got used to it or got kicked the fuck out.
Well theres plenty of speculation that integrated fighting units in Vietnam actually accelerated the civil rights
movement
I thought he already stomped out anyone except the president pulling executive privilege on his first day, and even when the President does it it needs approval by counsel.
I can actually see Bush's point here (that if conversations between aides are confidential during the presidency, they should stay so after it), but I think the real question would be can you use executive privilege on misconduct. Precident says no, so all you could refuse to testify on would be advice given relating to executive matters, anything else like discussing firing attorneys for political reasons, would be fair game. Unless you want to bring up a legal argument for misconduct being standard executive operations.
So what's up with the protectionist measures in the stimulus package? Do you guys only respect NAFTA when it benefits you or what? Trade wars at this time would be really bad.
So what's up with the protectionist measures in the stimulus package? Do you guys only respect NAFTA when it benefits you or what? Trade wars at this time would be really bad.
What are the odds that Rove would actually say something damaging on the witness stand if he was forced to testify? Since the Bush administration seems to have strategically 'lost' a lot of their incriminating emails, is there enough evidence available to catch him in perjury?
So what's up with the protectionist measures in the stimulus package? Do you guys only respect NAFTA when it benefits you or what? Trade wars at this time would be really bad.
What are the odds that Rove would actually say something damaging on the witness stand if he was forced to testify? Since the Bush administration seems to have strategically 'lost' a lot of their incriminating emails, is there enough evidence available to catch him in perjury?
Stupid people hopped up on Hopium: Throw a bunch of them up, catch the inconsistencies, promise immunity if one turns, etc.
Realistically? "I don't recall" "I don't remember" "I'm not sure" for days about anything.
So what's up with the protectionist measures in the stimulus package? Do you guys only respect NAFTA when it benefits you or what? Trade wars at this time would be really bad.
"Trade Wars" is a bullshit term. And nothing in that article suggests a violation of NAFTA. Also NAFTA is a shitty trade agreement.
thanks for the input.
Protectionism isn't really barred by NAFTA or anything else. That said, it's usually a pretty bullshit thing to do, and if the senate actually adds "everything has to be american!" I'll be pretty annoyed.
A 'buy american' clause is hopefully just the House's brand of stupidity and the Senate will delete it.
The article was implying the house added buy american on steel and iron, and the senate was trying to add buy american to Everything.
Some quick reading seems to imply that NAFTA has clauses exempting some forms of money, specifically certain government spending types. I don't know how valid that is, since it was all information from sales reps trying to get government agencies to buy their shit over foreign shit.
I don't see a huge problem. Doing 100% american would be stupid, but a certain high threshold would actually be smart. Since you know, this is for the stimulus of our economy. Canada can feel free to pass their own massive stimulus bill and spend it on Canadian shit.
Argh. Protectionism is just the thing to make this worse.
Are you just talking about purchasing, or is off-shoring jobs all good too? Also, recall that this is a stimulus package for helping the American economy. Ensuring that most of the money goes to America businesses and American workers is precisely the point.
Argh. Protectionism is just the thing to make this worse.
What makes you think that?
The purpose of the stimulus is to create increased production and employment in the United States. Steel, for example, bought in Canada will have a lesser beneficial effect even if the cost is reduced.
Wouldn't buying american help the economy in the short term, and then all those artificially propped up vendors collapse the second we stop the buy american thing and they have to compete again? I'm no econ major, but it seems like it would just create another artificial bubble to burst later as a solution to the current woes.
Wouldn't buying american help the economy in the short term, and then all those artificially propped up vendors collapse the second we stop the buy american thing and they have to compete again? I'm no econ major, but it seems like it would just create another artificial bubble to burst later as a solution to the current woes.
the entire point of a stimulus is to help in the short term.
If it triggers protectionist responses in other countries, their retaliation can hurt the American economy.
50% of Caterpillar's products go abroad, for example. If we refuse to buy steel from Country X even though we'd normally do so in lieu of buying more expensive American steel, and Country X decides to buy its own crappy tractors instead of Caterpillar's...
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
The accusations of protectionism flying around are a little overblown. We're not exactly talking about import tariffs here. Ensuring that the American taxpayers' money gets given to American firms is a little bit of a no brainer. This also has no effect on the private sector's ability to buy.
It would rather defeat the point of a stimulus if the government just rocked up and said "here you go China."
The Fourth Estate on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
The accusations of protectionism flying around are a little overblown. We're not exactly talking about import tariffs here. Ensuring that the American taxpayers' money gets given to American firms is a little bit of a no brainer. This also has no effect on the private sector.
It would rather defeat the point of a stimulus if the government just rocked up and said "here you go China."
Exactly. I'd be pretty damned pissed off if all this debt we're about to take on goes abroad instead of to American vendors and workers. Shit, I'm already pissed that the bailout money we've already doled out is going to companies that are laying off Americans and off-shoring jobs wherever they can.
If it triggers protectionist responses in other countries, their retaliation can hurt the American economy.
50% of Caterpillar's products go abroad, for example. If we refuse to buy steel from Country X even though we'd normally do so in lieu of buying more expensive American steel, and Country X decides to buy its own crappy tractors instead of Caterpillar's...
Considering America has a massive trade deficit I wouldn't be so sure this would be bad for America in the first place. The reduced efficiency would be harmful but right now free trade is fucking Americans pretty bad. The problem with the "Flat" earth is America is used to being on top.
But this probably should go to a new thread if people want to continue
Posts
I just started over in this one.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Wish I'd known about that earlier. Last time it aired in my area was the 22nd.
It is incredibly unlikely that a president would re-instate DADT after it was repealed. When the gays come out and yet the army fails to fall apart, they'll have no justification left for the policy other than blatant bigotry, which, one hopes, is going out of style.
It's more likely that it's just not Obama's top priority right now. Which is fair, although unfortunately reminiscent of every other time gays have not been the democrats' top priority.
But he certainly lacks a brain.
Can we not start that again.
I can't wait until DADT is done. The military guys I know think it's going to ruin the military. When I ask them if our military is the best in the world, they say hell yeah. I proceed to point out to them that the British have openly gay servicemen and their military still manages to be good, so our military must not be the best if we can't even live up to the British standard. I actually believe them when they say it's going to cause problems, but while in their eyes the problem is gay servicemen, in my eyes the problem is homophobic servicemen. I'll be happy if any soldier that can't obey the order to tolerate gays is dealt with swiftly and harshly and dishonorably discharged. It's long passed time we stopped tolerating and encouraging bigotry in the ranks.
To be fair, there was also a good 5'ish/+ page debate on the value of paying for / attending higher education for the average person, but that spawned its own thread.
Exactly- it'll cause problems the same way that integrating white and black soldiers caused problems - the bigots shit their pants over it for a while, then either got used to it or got kicked the fuck out.
Well theres plenty of speculation that integrated fighting units in Vietnam actually accelerated the civil rights
movement
Obama needs to stomp this out.
I thought he already stomped out anyone except the president pulling executive privilege on his first day, and even when the President does it it needs approval by counsel.
If they push it and a subpoena is issued Holder will either enforce it or not
I can actually see Bush's point here (that if conversations between aides are confidential during the presidency, they should stay so after it), but I think the real question would be can you use executive privilege on misconduct. Precident says no, so all you could refuse to testify on would be advice given relating to executive matters, anything else like discussing firing attorneys for political reasons, would be fair game. Unless you want to bring up a legal argument for misconduct being standard executive operations.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090130.wobamaagenda30/BNStory/National/home
Worrying to say the least.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
"Trade Wars" is a bullshit term. And nothing in that article suggests a violation of NAFTA. Also NAFTA is a shitty trade agreement.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
thanks for the input.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Stupid people hopped up on Hopium: Throw a bunch of them up, catch the inconsistencies, promise immunity if one turns, etc.
Realistically? "I don't recall" "I don't remember" "I'm not sure" for days about anything.
Protectionism isn't really barred by NAFTA or anything else. That said, it's usually a pretty bullshit thing to do, and if the senate actually adds "everything has to be american!" I'll be pretty annoyed.
And yeah, I'm pretty sure it's barred by NAFTA and the WTO, which requires government to treat domestic and foreign businesses equally.
The article was implying the house added buy american on steel and iron, and the senate was trying to add buy american to Everything.
Some quick reading seems to imply that NAFTA has clauses exempting some forms of money, specifically certain government spending types. I don't know how valid that is, since it was all information from sales reps trying to get government agencies to buy their shit over foreign shit.
I don't see a huge problem. Doing 100% american would be stupid, but a certain high threshold would actually be smart. Since you know, this is for the stimulus of our economy. Canada can feel free to pass their own massive stimulus bill and spend it on Canadian shit.
Are you just talking about purchasing, or is off-shoring jobs all good too? Also, recall that this is a stimulus package for helping the American economy. Ensuring that most of the money goes to America businesses and American workers is precisely the point.
What makes you think that?
The purpose of the stimulus is to create increased production and employment in the United States. Steel, for example, bought in Canada will have a lesser beneficial effect even if the cost is reduced.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
the entire point of a stimulus is to help in the short term.
50% of Caterpillar's products go abroad, for example. If we refuse to buy steel from Country X even though we'd normally do so in lieu of buying more expensive American steel, and Country X decides to buy its own crappy tractors instead of Caterpillar's...
"I'm pretty sure you do remember, and remind you that you are under oath" would take care of that in a hell of a hurry.
It would rather defeat the point of a stimulus if the government just rocked up and said "here you go China."
Eh, hard to prove someone's memory, unless you get a witness somewhere to flip.
Exactly. I'd be pretty damned pissed off if all this debt we're about to take on goes abroad instead of to American vendors and workers. Shit, I'm already pissed that the bailout money we've already doled out is going to companies that are laying off Americans and off-shoring jobs wherever they can.
Considering America has a massive trade deficit I wouldn't be so sure this would be bad for America in the first place. The reduced efficiency would be harmful but right now free trade is fucking Americans pretty bad. The problem with the "Flat" earth is America is used to being on top.
But this probably should go to a new thread if people want to continue
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
No it really isn't. It's fucking some Americans; America as a whole has benefited and continues to benefit from free trade.