You do realize that Iraq is not in fact part of the United States, yes? And that we did in fact leave Iraq and are leaving Afghanistan?
Your argument. "Those poor brown people can figure things out without our interference." Is the same arguments as McKinnley's.
Uh, no, it isn't. I couldn't care less what color the skin of the Iraqis is. If we had invaded and regime changed Norway I'd feel the same way. How about you pull your head out of your ass and talk to me like an adult.
You want to debate with real statements, you go ahead. Tell me about lives lost, money spent, maybe bring in some evidence that Iraq wouldn't have collapsed into itself.
But you don't, you're just throwing around a tenth grader's understanding of history and calling me a racist because I don't see the world in black and white. When you feel like having an actual debate, I'll be here. But until you grow up have fun on your own.
Goose. It doesnt matter what would have happened. What matters is what they wanted. Your argument is the same as, "well I just raped you and got you pregnant now I have to stay in your house and live with you until the child grows up. Anything else would be irresponsible."
Goose. Leaving when we agreed to leave, agreed with the elected Iraqi government, is not the same at all.
Grow up.
It's true install some politicians, call them democratically elected, get them to agree to what you want at the point of a gun. Totally on the Up and Up.
No U.
Edit: I should have expected this from you. Anytime we agree on anything you have to go full goose to gain back the respect of the tribe. Never go full goose.
There is a perfect example in Afghanistan. They Afghanis Hate the US and want the Soldiers OUT. Karzai knows the first thing that happens will be his head on a pike.
So He'll ask the US to stay. Has nothing to do with elections, democracy, stopping terrorism.
Obama won't leave because he doesnt want to look weak in an election year. The political calculus plays out in dead Americans and Dead Afghanis.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"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
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Bush declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq in 2003. The new government of Iraq formed in 2006. 6 years of occupation (3 under the new government) is plenty of time, so yeah, I don't think we saved a whole lot of lives by staying an extra 3 years and in the meantime we lost many American and Iraqi lives from continued skirmishes. Obviously I don't have much of the information available to me that Obama does, but neither do you guys, so let's take the appeal to authority off the table here.
With the economic situation at home when Obama took office I would have been completely fine with leaving in Jan 2009.
Given that Obama got the Nobel Peace prize for essentially being not-Bush, I doubt the rest of the world cared a lot about us upholding Bush's promises.
Witht he economic situation at home in 2009, bringing that many troops back all at once would have more than likely wreaked even more havoc on the system. I'm not saying that I like the 3 extra years of fighting, casualties, etc. I absolutely positively do not. But, that being said, bringing the troops home in 2009 would have been potentially catastrophic on the economy. On the recovery, which is slow going enough as it is. Add in the numbers of the soldiers to the unemployment numbers and things spike in ways that I surely don't understand. I wish we could have ended it sooner. Hell I wish we had never even gone in the first place. But that's just not the way reality worked out.
I'm not trying to appeal to authority, honestly. just saying that we don't have all the information so giving some benefit of the doubt is not out of line.
And to be honest, keeping the promises that Bush made is, while distasteful in some ways, is still an overall positive. If for no other reason than showing consistency of leadership. Treaties are treaties from Versailles on through to today because of consistency. There needs to be, especially in this age of globalism and information faster than light, the belief that what a country's leaders say will be held to when the next leaders come through. It really is that important.
Well I didn't mean release them from service (and flood the labor market), just bring them out of deployment. I'm not sure exactly what our military does when not deployed (training I guess) but I'm pretty sure the cost of an American troop at home is much less than the cost of occupation.
I don't mind giving him the benefit of the doubt, it was just such a huge reason I voted for him in 2008 (my wife got out of the army in 2002 and I constantly wonder what if she had been deployed and died for such a bullshit cause) that I have a hard time not being disappointed. I just really don't like it being spun as a positive thing he's accomplished like it was in the Sullivan article linked a while back in this thread. For me it will always be a negative mark but if you wanted to call it neutral (since he followed the baseline set by Bush) I wouldn't argue it.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
So I have gone full goose in support of a non liberal position to gain the respect of the liberal echo chamber tribe?
But I think we're at an impasse here, so let's move on, eh?
That is fantastic news. My problem stems from the many friends (and random liberals on the internet) I have conversations with that constantly rattle off all the same stuff you have been, and then finish it off with "so I can't really feel comfortable voting for Obama again." I see it so much that I have really begun to think it's a serious problem. So I apologize if I projected that onto you, but in my experience, many liberals tend to be way too concerned with keeping their personal conscience clean. Sometimes you need to just bite the bullet and do what needs to be done, because the alternative has the possibility of being much, much worse. Making the perfect the enemy of the good is something a lot of people I know are very good at, and it also seems to be pretty common, hence the idea that dealing with liberals in politics is a lot like herding cats.
All of the negatives about the Obama administration that you (and my liberal friends) keep putting forth just make me kind of go, "yeah, mmhm, ok, sure, you're right...so what?" Voting for whatever choice we have that happens to be marginally more progressive is really the only thing you can do when it comes to election day. Pushing liberal(-ish) lawmakers to make liberal choices while their doing their job is incredibly important, but there isn't even a chance of that if the person who takes their job is actively working against the efforts of liberal causes. The risk that a conservative in office would actually act on the warped worldview they have is too great for me to feel comfortable abstaining from voting in some attempt to send a message to liberal politicians.
It sucks that liberal politicians in America are barely "liberal" at all, but have you seen the culture out there? "Liberal" has literally been turned into a bad word for a huge portion of the populace, and the politicians have bought into it as well. Not voting, and thereby ensuring conservative victories does nothing to fix that. In fact, it makes it worse, for pretty obvious reasons.
That's pretty reasonable, but depressing.
It sure as hell is. Pretty damn cynical too, but I'm afraid I feel like that's where we're at.
your troll just berserked on us.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
So I have gone full goose in support of a non liberal position to gain the respect of the liberal echo chamber tribe?
But I think we're at an impasse here, so let's move on, eh?
There is a perfect example in Afghanistan. They Afghanis Hate the US and want the Soldiers OUT. Karzai knows the first thing that happens will be his head on a pike.
So He'll ask the US to stay. Has nothing to do with elections, democracy, stopping terrorism.
Obama won't leave because he doesnt want to look weak in an election year. The political calculus plays out in dead Americans and Dead Afghanis.
Feel free to call me a child and tell me to get my head out of my ass again.
Who cares about dead Americans and Dead Afghani NBD. Fight them over there or fight them over here right?
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"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
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
So I have gone full goose in support of a non liberal position to gain the respect of the liberal echo chamber tribe?
But I think we're at an impasse here, so let's move on, eh?
There is a perfect example in Afghanistan. They Afghanis Hate the US and want the Soldiers OUT. Karzai knows the first thing that happens will be his head on a pike.
So He'll ask the US to stay. Has nothing to do with elections, democracy, stopping terrorism.
Obama won't leave because he doesnt want to look weak in an election year. The political calculus plays out in dead Americans and Dead Afghanis.
Feel free to call me a child and tell me to get my head out of my ass again.
Who cares about dead Americans and Dead Afghani NBD. Fight them over there or fight them over here right?
Those are perfectly reasonable statements about Afghanistan. We were talking about Iraq. Also, we've already started leaving Afghanistan and I don't think Obama campaigned on that one. The Republicans are trying to turn this decision into a weakness for the Obama campaign, btw.
The sad truth is that most Americans don't care about Afghanistan, which is shameful but the truth.
The situation in Afghanistan is completely different from Iraq and wasn't what we were talking about.
So I have gone full goose in support of a non liberal position to gain the respect of the liberal echo chamber tribe?
But I think we're at an impasse here, so let's move on, eh?
There is a perfect example in Afghanistan. They Afghanis Hate the US and want the Soldiers OUT. Karzai knows the first thing that happens will be his head on a pike.
So He'll ask the US to stay. Has nothing to do with elections, democracy, stopping terrorism.
Obama won't leave because he doesnt want to look weak in an election year. The political calculus plays out in dead Americans and Dead Afghanis.
Feel free to call me a child and tell me to get my head out of my ass again.
Who cares about dead Americans and Dead Afghani NBD. Fight them over there or fight them over here right?
You keep saying that we don't care about dead Afghanis, and yet you also say that Karzai is a dead man if we leave. Don't you think militants will massacre everyone who was pro-government if we leave before the government can maintain control? How do all those dead pro-government Afghanis fit into the equation?
Is it possible that less Afghanis will die under our occupation then will in a full blown civil war? You make it sound like as soon as we withdraw, peace will return to the land.
Anecdote inbound! One of my family members recently returned from a tour in Afghanistan. He says the Afghan soldiers he worked with were terrified of a US withdraw.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
So I have gone full goose in support of a non liberal position to gain the respect of the liberal echo chamber tribe?
But I think we're at an impasse here, so let's move on, eh?
There is a perfect example in Afghanistan. They Afghanis Hate the US and want the Soldiers OUT. Karzai knows the first thing that happens will be his head on a pike.
So He'll ask the US to stay. Has nothing to do with elections, democracy, stopping terrorism.
Obama won't leave because he doesnt want to look weak in an election year. The political calculus plays out in dead Americans and Dead Afghanis.
Feel free to call me a child and tell me to get my head out of my ass again.
Who cares about dead Americans and Dead Afghani NBD. Fight them over there or fight them over here right?
Those are perfectly reasonable statements about Afghanistan. We were talking about Iraq. Also, we've already started leaving Afghanistan and I don't think Obama campaigned on that one. The Republicans are trying to turn this decision into a weakness for the Obama campaign, btw.
The sad truth is that most Americans don't care about Afghanistan, which is shameful but the truth.
The situation in Afghanistan is completely different from Iraq and wasn't what we were talking about.
The examples are incredibly similar. There's no significant difference.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"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
So I have gone full goose in support of a non liberal position to gain the respect of the liberal echo chamber tribe?
But I think we're at an impasse here, so let's move on, eh?
There is a perfect example in Afghanistan. They Afghanis Hate the US and want the Soldiers OUT. Karzai knows the first thing that happens will be his head on a pike.
So He'll ask the US to stay. Has nothing to do with elections, democracy, stopping terrorism.
Obama won't leave because he doesnt want to look weak in an election year. The political calculus plays out in dead Americans and Dead Afghanis.
Feel free to call me a child and tell me to get my head out of my ass again.
Who cares about dead Americans and Dead Afghani NBD. Fight them over there or fight them over here right?
Those are perfectly reasonable statements about Afghanistan. We were talking about Iraq. Also, we've already started leaving Afghanistan and I don't think Obama campaigned on that one. The Republicans are trying to turn this decision into a weakness for the Obama campaign, btw.
The sad truth is that most Americans don't care about Afghanistan, which is shameful but the truth.
The situation in Afghanistan is completely different from Iraq and wasn't what we were talking about.
The examples are incredibly similar. There's no significant difference.
Ladies and gentlemen: Iraq and Afghanistan are exactly the same, and everyone else in the discussion is a racist with an overinflated sense of American importance.
You're disdaining a fairly significant decline in the trend line. That makes me question your judgement here. And speaking as someone who has been denied insurance on the basis of pre-existing conditions, I'd say that it is much more significant than 'taking on extra weight on a sinking ship' to those individuals who are affected. Good policy is important in the abstract, but only because good policy has concrete impact on people's lives. Making progress, however incremental, towards improving that impact is a rather wonderful occurrence. It is also how everything happens in governance. As a somewhat related aside, have you ever read the original Social Security Act?
The trend line is colored by an enormously depressed economy.
Except if you can't afford healthcare you get a subsidy
For example if the ACA went into full effect right now I would spend precisely zero dollars and be insured. I think you're a bit overly cynical, as if you look at the history of both Social Security and Medicare you'll see similar things. Both programs struggled early on, but once people actually start benefiting from them they become unrepealable.
If the ACA is still around and starts up in 2014, it will be impossible to repeal. Any political party that decides to take away 15% of the nation's health insurance with legislation is asking to be taken out back and shot, it's why the worst the Republicans will do to Medicare is make ridiculous proposals that they themselves have no intention of passing.
There is no enforcement mechanism in the ACA. If you can afford to purchase health care and you choose not to nothing happens. The free rider problem is not solved.
Additional changes have been made to the ACA since it's inception. It's getting nickeled and dimed out of funding to deal with the imaginary problem of deficits.
quite possibly I am being cynical. I know from personal experience it doesn't solve the health care crisis today. I think there's evidence to say it wont solve it tomorrow or in 2014. Nothing I see anywhere seems to solve the problem of stratification of society in the US. In the real middle class getting hemed in on every front. There appears to be slightly more there there in the bones the middle class gets thrown from the democrats than the republicans. While Reagen era policies are seen as ridiculously left wing. There's no meaningful reform or oversight of hugely risky financial markets, there's absolutely well document different systems of treatment between the very rich and the middle class, and shallow CBO scored nearly meaningless reform is seen as sage steps in the right direction by the vast majority of the members of this board. Meanwhile it's now okay to assassinate US citizens abroad, possibly at home too, and unemployment is functionally 16%. But the ACA somehow makes it all worth it.
What do you mean nothing happens? You have to pay a fine if you do not purchase healthcare. The fine is less than the cost of healthcare, but that is not nonenforcement. . .
Businesses being punished by fines is futile. Make it jail time and other actual punishments that hurt the business or the people responsible for the decisions in a way they can't laugh off like being banned from said industries for x years or permanently and that will have an effect on white collar crimes being committed.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Bush declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq in 2003. The new government of Iraq formed in 2006. 6 years of occupation (3 under the new government) is plenty of time, so yeah, I don't think we saved a whole lot of lives by staying an extra 3 years and in the meantime we lost many American and Iraqi lives from continued skirmishes. Obviously I don't have much of the information available to me that Obama does, but neither do you guys, so let's take the appeal to authority off the table here.
With the economic situation at home when Obama took office I would have been completely fine with leaving in Jan 2009.
Given that Obama got the Nobel Peace prize for essentially being not-Bush, I doubt the rest of the world cared a lot about us upholding Bush's promises.
Witht he economic situation at home in 2009, bringing that many troops back all at once would have more than likely wreaked even more havoc on the system. I'm not saying that I like the 3 extra years of fighting, casualties, etc. I absolutely positively do not. But, that being said, bringing the troops home in 2009 would have been potentially catastrophic on the economy. On the recovery, which is slow going enough as it is. Add in the numbers of the soldiers to the unemployment numbers and things spike in ways that I surely don't understand. I wish we could have ended it sooner. Hell I wish we had never even gone in the first place. But that's just not the way reality worked out.
I'm not trying to appeal to authority, honestly. just saying that we don't have all the information so giving some benefit of the doubt is not out of line.
And to be honest, keeping the promises that Bush made is, while distasteful in some ways, is still an overall positive. If for no other reason than showing consistency of leadership. Treaties are treaties from Versailles on through to today because of consistency. There needs to be, especially in this age of globalism and information faster than light, the belief that what a country's leaders say will be held to when the next leaders come through. It really is that important.
Well I didn't mean release them from service (and flood the labor market), just bring them out of deployment. I'm not sure exactly what our military does when not deployed (training I guess) but I'm pretty sure the cost of an American troop at home is much less than the cost of occupation.
I don't mind giving him the benefit of the doubt, it was just such a huge reason I voted for him in 2008 (my wife got out of the army in 2002 and I constantly wonder what if she had been deployed and died for such a bullshit cause) that I have a hard time not being disappointed. I just really don't like it being spun as a positive thing he's accomplished like it was in the Sullivan article linked a while back in this thread. For me it will always be a negative mark but if you wanted to call it neutral (since he followed the baseline set by Bush) I wouldn't argue it.
I didn't necessarily mean release all of them from service, but there are a lot of national guard over there still, or were, right? I'm going to be honest and say that I'm not as up and up on who's deployed where and from where and what branch. I'm not in the states any longer and living near a base anymore so it's harder to get perspective. But from what I thought the guardsmen/women/people would have been put back into civilian life and considering how many were over there.
I'm willing to totally admit that I'm wrong on that front. But I bring another front, we're having a hard enough time dealing with the PTSD cases as they came trickling back little by little, if everybody came back all at once?
But this is all just speculation, because the war happened the way it happened and we're at this stage now. It's not a resounding success for President Obama, but it's not an astounding defeat or betrayal. So yeah, I can agree with neutral on this.
Businesses being punished by fines is futile. Make it jail time and other actual punishments that hurt the business or the people responsible for the decisions in a way they can't laugh off like being banned from said industries for x years or permanently and that will have an effect on white collar crimes being committed.
Only because of the size of the fees. If they were "comply or you put your business at risk of not existing anymore"-sized you'd probably see a lot more compliance.
I'd like to hear Seruko's argument for the Iraqi government not being really democratically elected.
But then I'm a masochist.
Seriously Seruko do you think your posting has improved because you've replaced calling us a "Tribal eco-chamber" with starting every post you make with goose?
Yes I know AManfromearth said goose to, not the same.
Making the perfect the enemy of the good is something a lot of people I know are very good at, and it also seems to be pretty common, hence the idea that dealing with liberals in politics is a lot like herding cats.
We're not all unreasonable. Liberals do need to be more pragmatic but there's nothing that can't be worked out with compromises and understanding IMO.
Edit: I should have expected this from you. Anytime we agree on anything you have to go full goose to gain back the respect of the tribe. Never go full goose.
Not to be insulting, I simply find this sentence funny. Whoever thought up "goose" for a swear word was a fucking genius. It's hilarious.
Businesses being punished by fines is futile. Make it jail time and other actual punishments that hurt the business or the people responsible for the decisions in a way they can't laugh off like being banned from said industries for x years or permanently and that will have an effect on white collar crimes being committed.
Only because of the size of the fees. If they were "comply or you put your business at risk of not existing anymore"-sized you'd probably see a lot more compliance.
That law says you have to conspire - which requires intent, right? I don't think that law applies to people who are just talking about how awesome it would be to overthrow the government. Someone would have to prove that they had a plan and were going to go through with it. And if the FBI got wind of an actual plan to overthrow the US, I'm pretty sure they'd crack down on any of those groups.
Yeah, there's the whole "actionable threat" thing. Remember how Bush sent fighters to shoot down civilian planes full of American because the planes represented both an intent and capability to take a large number of lives? That's how this shit has always worked because anything else is stupid.
What? I'm not following here. To what are you referring? What is the point you're trying to make?
I'm saying that nobody goes after stupid rednecks because they're not competent enough to be a threat.
So I have gone full goose in support of a non liberal position to gain the respect of the liberal echo chamber tribe?
But I think we're at an impasse here, so let's move on, eh?
There is a perfect example in Afghanistan. They Afghanis Hate the US and want the Soldiers OUT. Karzai knows the first thing that happens will be his head on a pike.
So He'll ask the US to stay. Has nothing to do with elections, democracy, stopping terrorism.
Obama won't leave because he doesnt want to look weak in an election year. The political calculus plays out in dead Americans and Dead Afghanis.
Feel free to call me a child and tell me to get my head out of my ass again.
Who cares about dead Americans and Dead Afghani NBD. Fight them over there or fight them over here right?
Those are perfectly reasonable statements about Afghanistan. We were talking about Iraq. Also, we've already started leaving Afghanistan and I don't think Obama campaigned on that one. The Republicans are trying to turn this decision into a weakness for the Obama campaign, btw.
The sad truth is that most Americans don't care about Afghanistan, which is shameful but the truth.
The situation in Afghanistan is completely different from Iraq and wasn't what we were talking about.
Actually, they're pretty damn inaccurate. Polls from Afghanistan on the stay/go issue can swing maybe 50 percentage points hour to hour with the same sample size. The only real consistent results are that the Afghanis want the operations resulting in civilian deaths to stop but don't think the Afghani army is strong enough to stop all hell breaking loose.
Bush declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq in 2003. The new government of Iraq formed in 2006. 6 years of occupation (3 under the new government) is plenty of time, so yeah, I don't think we saved a whole lot of lives by staying an extra 3 years and in the meantime we lost many American and Iraqi lives from continued skirmishes. Obviously I don't have much of the information available to me that Obama does, but neither do you guys, so let's take the appeal to authority off the table here.
With the economic situation at home when Obama took office I would have been completely fine with leaving in Jan 2009.
Given that Obama got the Nobel Peace prize for essentially being not-Bush, I doubt the rest of the world cared a lot about us upholding Bush's promises.
See this post? This is how you debate this question. These are opinions I can respect, even if I don't particulary agree 100%.
"You're an imperialist. You're a racist." Are not.
See this? This is why actually sticking to a Bush administration time frame is one of the greatest contrasts Obama could have made against the Bush administration. That's probably the thing that pisses off the Republicans the most, as Obama is constantly succeeding at what Bush only thought he was doing.
Had to fend off coworkers from the onslaught of accusing the President of making those FEMA camps to prepare detaining people. Plus the rest of the republican talking points.
Edit: I should have expected this from you. Anytime we agree on anything you have to go full goose to gain back the respect of the tribe. Never go full goose.
Not to be insulting, I simply find this sentence funny. Whoever thought up "goose" for a swear word was a fucking genius. It's hilarious.
Pretty sure it was Tube, and it's not a swear word, it's a generic replacement for any personal insult.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Bush declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq in 2003. The new government of Iraq formed in 2006. 6 years of occupation (3 under the new government) is plenty of time, so yeah, I don't think we saved a whole lot of lives by staying an extra 3 years and in the meantime we lost many American and Iraqi lives from continued skirmishes. Obviously I don't have much of the information available to me that Obama does, but neither do you guys, so let's take the appeal to authority off the table here.
With the economic situation at home when Obama took office I would have been completely fine with leaving in Jan 2009.
Given that Obama got the Nobel Peace prize for essentially being not-Bush, I doubt the rest of the world cared a lot about us upholding Bush's promises.
That's not an appeal to authority at all. There's every reason to assume President Obama gets far better information then candidate Obama, let alone you or I. To attempt to ignore this as a possible source of a change in position is incredibly dishonest.
Secondly, plans are made based on timelines. If Bush told the Iraqis "We are leaving on this data", they will plan the transition of authority to happen on that timetable. Asking them to change that timetable isn't necessarily feasible or a good thing. This isn't "6 years of occupation to get ready". That doesn't even make sense in light of how ANYTHING in the real world is planned.
Well, this is interesting. I guess Likud is like the GOP in its ability to keep winning elections while holding policies unpopular among the voting populace.
No, no, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression should've been solved and we should be in a New Liberal Paradise that Obama never promised.
And then Goose raises it's head. No One Suggested the above. Obama's own advisers said the stimulus was way too little. Charitably it was naivety that led them to ask for a lower amount with the hope they could just go back for more later. The later focus on deficits has no such charitable basis. A ridiculous policy, that's led to continued economic struggle in the US for no reason at all. There was nothing won in the deficit battle. Obama argued to hurt the American Economy, Republicans in the House and Senate argued we should drown it in a bath tub. Democrats in the legislature settled on hurting it more than Obama asked for but not murdering it in a bath tub. No one has argued for Sane policy since. That is not asking for paradise.
So hypothetically, if Rick Santorum becomes the nominee for the Republicans, you're going to see it as basically a wash, social-policy wise? Santorum is only minimally worse in that area than Bush was, and Obama is only minimally better, right? You really feel comfortable giving that man the chance to act on those views from the highest office in our country? Who knows, maybe we'd get lucky and he (or any other conservative like him) would just sit on his ass and not try and push their conservative social agenda forward once they got elected, but I intend to do what I can to make sure they don't get the chance.
The point is that the views held by the far-right on social issues have become so odious, that I find myself with no other choice than to do everything I can to limit the opportunity they have to influence our society. Sometimes (well, frequently) that comes in the form of voting for a democrat.
edit: and I'm sick of more economically-minded liberals trying to get me to feel bad about that.
Nope. Just like I argued in the quote you apparently haven't read The difference between Bush and Obama is small, there largest difference is on GLBT issues, outside of that their large agreement, including other social issues like the Drug War (Where Obama's DOJ is farther to the right than Bush's). I do not belive, nor have I ever suggested the diffrence between Bush and Santorum are small. I suspect the policies that would get enacted under Romney would be in the Same Vein as Bush. If things continue on the way they are I won't have to find out. But Obama is essentially one great economic problem away from losing to Romney. Thankfully the brutality of the Republican Primary, the number of unforced errors, and the Republican electorates general distastes of Romney mean we probably don't have to worry about it, but by all mean go vote for Obama, I will. Just For god sakes can we have an actual Liberal president the next go around?
I had agreed with much of what you were saying up to this point. It really seems like you disagree with Obama so I would say you shouldn't be voting for him. The way I look at it is there has to be a line at which you will no longer vote for a person, if not your vote is entirely valueless. If you will always vote for the Democrat as long as they are slightly more left than the Republican then there is no reason for that Democrat or other Democratic politicians to move closer to you they just have to maintain a position slightly to the left of the Republicans. This contributes to the Overton Window shifting to the right as the Democrats view their left-wing base to be safe and they can attempt to pick up more conservative voters by moving more rightward.
I think a similar idea to what I'm getting at can be seen in The Ballot or the Bullet where Malcolm X expresses the idea that the Democrats would pay some lip-service towards civil rights to get the black vote and then once they are safely voting for them work with racists to further increase their own power.
So it's time in 1964 to wake up. And when you see them coming up with that kind of conspiracy, let them know your eyes are open. And let them know you -- something else that's wide open too. It's got to be the ballot or the bullet. The ballot or the bullet. If you're afraid to use an expression like that, you should get on out of the country; you should get back in the cotton patch; you should get back in the alley. They get all the Negro vote, and after they get it, the Negro gets nothing in return. All they did when they got to Washington was give a few big Negroes big jobs. Those big Negroes didn't need big jobs, they already had jobs. That's camouflage, that's trickery, that's treachery, window-dressing. I'm not trying to knock out the Democrats for the Republicans. We'll get to them in a minute. But it is true; you put the Democrats first and the Democrats put you last.
Look at it the way it is. What alibis do they use, since they control Congress and the Senate? What alibi do they use when you and I ask, "Well, when are you going to keep your promise?" They blame the Dixiecrats. What is a Dixiecrat? A Democrat. A Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat in disguise. The titular head of the Democrats is also the head of the Dixiecrats, because the Dixiecrats are a part of the Democratic Party. The Democrats have never kicked the Dixiecrats out of the party. The Dixiecrats bolted themselves once, but the Democrats didn't put them out. Imagine, these lowdown Southern segregationists put the Northern Democrats down. But the Northern Democrats have never put the Dixiecrats down. No, look at that thing the way it is. They have got a con game going on, a political con game, and you and I are in the middle. It's time for you and me to wake up and start looking at it like it is, and trying to understand it like it is; and then we can deal with it like it is.
You do realize that Iraq is not in fact part of the United States, yes? And that we did in fact leave Iraq and are leaving Afghanistan?
Your argument. "Those poor brown people can figure things out without our interference." Is the same arguments as McKinnley's.
Uh, no, it isn't. I couldn't care less what color the skin of the Iraqis is. If we had invaded and regime changed Norway I'd feel the same way. How about you pull your head out of your ass and talk to me like an adult.
You want to debate with real statements, you go ahead. Tell me about lives lost, money spent, maybe bring in some evidence that Iraq wouldn't have collapsed into itself.
But you don't, you're just throwing around a tenth grader's understanding of history and calling me a racist because I don't see the world in black and white. When you feel like having an actual debate, I'll be here. But until you grow up have fun on your own.
Goose. It doesnt matter what would have happened. What matters is what they wanted. Your argument is the same as, "well I just raped you and got you pregnant now I have to stay in your house and live with you until the child grows up. Anything else would be irresponsible."
Goose. Leaving when we agreed to leave, agreed with the elected Iraqi government, is not the same at all.
Grow up.
It's true install some politicians, call them democratically elected, get them to agree to what you want at the point of a gun. Totally on the Up and Up.
No U.
Edit: I should have expected this from you. Anytime we agree on anything you have to go full goose to gain back the respect of the tribe. Never go full goose.
There is a perfect example in Afghanistan. They Afghanis Hate the US and want the Soldiers OUT. Karzai knows the first thing that happens will be his head on a pike.
So He'll ask the US to stay. Has nothing to do with elections, democracy, stopping terrorism.
Obama won't leave because he doesnt want to look weak in an election year. The political calculus plays out in dead Americans and Dead Afghanis.
If I remember correctly, the Iraqis chose people for their top positions that the US "didn't support". Can anyone else confirm whether this is so?
Businesses being punished by fines is futile. Make it jail time and other actual punishments that hurt the business or the people responsible for the decisions in a way they can't laugh off like being banned from said industries for x years or permanently and that will have an effect on white collar crimes being committed.
Only because of the size of the fees. If they were "comply or you put your business at risk of not existing anymore"-sized you'd probably see a lot more compliance.
No it wouldn't. Large fees would bankrupt the smaller businesses, but the larger businesses would just buy up those parts and go on to pollute more and incorporate those fees into their expenses. Then use their amassed wealth to lobby and campaign for lawmakers who will lower the fees back down again. Look at how much the pork industry which is largely run by one corporation gets away with. You can't make a fee large enough to stop pollution without nationalizing the industry. Jail time seems more effective to me. For sustained systemic violation pull their corporate charter and pay out in reverse normal order, goverment first, then litigates, then debtors, then bonds, then stockholders (voting stock last), then executives last if there's anything at all left over. There needs to be a death penalty for corporations.
Businesses being punished by fines is futile. Make it jail time and other actual punishments that hurt the business or the people responsible for the decisions in a way they can't laugh off like being banned from said industries for x years or permanently and that will have an effect on white collar crimes being committed.
Only because of the size of the fees. If they were "comply or you put your business at risk of not existing anymore"-sized you'd probably see a lot more compliance.
No it wouldn't. Large fees would bankrupt the smaller businesses, but the larger businesses would just buy up those parts and go on to pollute more and incorporate those fees into their expenses. Then use their amassed wealth to lobby and campaign for lawmakers who will lower the fees back down again. Look at how much the pork industry which is largely run by one corporation gets away with. You can't make a fee large enough to stop pollution without nationalizing the industry. Jail time seems more effective to me. For sustained systemic violation pull their corporate charter and pay out in reverse normal order, goverment first, then litigates, then debtors, then bonds, then stockholders (voting stock last), then executives last if there's anything at all left over. There needs to be a death penalty for corporations.
Who do you jail, and why can't the fines simply be levied on a per capita basis?
I had agreed with much of what you were saying up to this point. It really seems like you disagree with Obama so I would say you shouldn't be voting for him. The way I look at it is there has to be a line at which you will no longer vote for a person, if not your vote is entirely valueless. If you will always vote for the Democrat as long as they are slightly more left than the Republican then there is no reason for that Democrat or other Democratic politicians to move closer to you they just have to maintain a position slightly to the left of the Republicans. This contributes to the Overton Window shifting to the right as the Democrats view their left-wing base to be safe and they can attempt to pick up more conservative voters by moving more rightward.
I think a similar idea to what I'm getting at can be seen in The Ballot or the Bullet where Malcolm X expresses the idea that the Democrats would pay some lip-service towards civil rights to get the black vote and then once they are safely voting for them work with racists to further increase their own power.
Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I had agreed with much of what you were saying up to this point. It really seems like you disagree with Obama so I would say you shouldn't be voting for him. The way I look at it is there has to be a line at which you will no longer vote for a person, if not your vote is entirely valueless. If you will always vote for the Democrat as long as they are slightly more left than the Republican then there is no reason for that Democrat or other Democratic politicians to move closer to you they just have to maintain a position slightly to the left of the Republicans. This contributes to the Overton Window shifting to the right as the Democrats view their left-wing base to be safe and they can attempt to pick up more conservative voters by moving more rightward.
I think a similar idea to what I'm getting at can be seen in The Ballot or the Bullet where Malcolm X expresses the idea that the Democrats would pay some lip-service towards civil rights to get the black vote and then once they are safely voting for them work with racists to further increase their own power.
Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.
You want a 4,350 or 43,500 member federal legislature?
Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.
It seems that voting for the lesser to two evils isn't working either. I admit there is close to 0 chance of my working. But it makes more sense to me to vote in terms of voting to vote for what you want and hope that politicians will see this and adjust to better represent your desires.
The way I see it right now both the Republicans and Democrats are driving the country off a cliff, the big difference being the speed at which they do so. What I want is to actually turn things around instead of choosing a slower decline even though I'm cynical enough to believe it is an pretty futile effort.
Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.
It seems that voting for the lesser to two evils isn't working either. I admit there is close to 0 chance of my working. But it makes more sense to me to vote in terms of voting to vote for what you want and hope that politicians will see this and adjust to better represent your desires.
The way I see it right now both the Republicans and Democrats are driving the country off a cliff, the big difference being the speed at which they do so. What I want is to actually turn things around instead of choosing a slower decline even though I'm cynical enough to believe it is an pretty futile effort.
I'd respond by noting that before you can reverse direction you need to slow your current path. So even if you have to hold your nose, you need to support the guy trying to apply the breaks.
This is from that Rolling Stone article posted a few pages ago, and I couldn't possibly agree more strongly.
I'm heartbroken by something else. I believe politics is a team sport. That, for awful and unfortunate reasons beyond any of our control, the American system only allows, effectively, for two teams. And that if you don't plant your flag with the team that you agree with most of the time — 99 times out of 100, in Cecil's case — you're ultimately only helping the other team.
EDIT: Actually, I think that article was posted in the GOP Primary thread. But my point still stands. Here's a link to it since it also seems fairly relavent to a discussion of Obama.
Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.
It seems that voting for the lesser to two evils isn't working either. I admit there is close to 0 chance of my working. But it makes more sense to me to vote in terms of voting to vote for what you want and hope that politicians will see this and adjust to better represent your desires.
The way I see it right now both the Republicans and Democrats are driving the country off a cliff, the big difference being the speed at which they do so. What I want is to actually turn things around instead of choosing a slower decline even though I'm cynical enough to believe it is an pretty futile effort.
We've put a democrat in the White House for one bloody term and he hasn't gotten everything you wanted? Obama made several obvious pushes forward. Maybe if liberals wern't so quick to abandon the party that is going there way(and convincing themselves they are just as bad as the other guy) they would be a more viable base.
Wow, this is so not the place to come to learn about things that the Obama administration is actually doing. I get a better idea of what he's up to from the Republican primary thread.
Obama = Bush is neither helpful nor accurate, Seruko. You believe it to be the case, I'll take your word for that. It has no bearing going forward, however. Can we please talk about what's going on with the administration now?
Like... say the birth control compromise?
Or the Republican claims that lowering the aid budget for Israel imply that Obama is abandoning the Jewish people?
You know, stuff that isn't focussed directly on cherry picking old data for purposes of some mysterious agenda of Bush-equating?
Wow, this is so not the place to come to learn about things that the Obama administration is actually doing. I get a better idea of what he's up to from the Republican primary thread.
Obama = Bush is neither helpful nor accurate, Seruko. You believe it to be the case, I'll take your word for that. It has no bearing going forward, however. Can we please talk about what's going on with the administration now?
Like... say the birth control compromise?
Or the Republican claims that lowering the aid budget for Israel imply that Obama is abandoning the Jewish people?
You know, stuff that isn't focussed directly on cherry picking old data for purposes of some mysterious agenda of Bush-equating?
Actually now that you mention it I'd like to hear more about this NK deal if anybody has anything.
Wow, this is so not the place to come to learn about things that the Obama administration is actually doing. I get a better idea of what he's up to from the Republican primary thread.
Obama = Bush is neither helpful nor accurate, Seruko. You believe it to be the case, I'll take your word for that. It has no bearing going forward, however. Can we please talk about what's going on with the administration now?
Like... say the birth control compromise?
Or the Republican claims that lowering the aid budget for Israel imply that Obama is abandoning the Jewish people?
You know, stuff that isn't focussed directly on cherry picking old data for purposes of some mysterious agenda of Bush-equating?
Actually now that you mention it I'd like to hear more about this NK deal if anybody has anything.
North Korea's pledge to suspend uranium enrichment, as well as nuclear and long-range missile tests, has received a cautious international welcome.
A White House spokesman called it a "positive first step" towards denuclearising the Korean peninsula.
China and Russia also welcomed the move, while Japan said it could "be seen as progress".
The deal followed talks between US and North Korean diplomats in Beijing last week.
The US has announced 240,000 tonnes of new food aid for Pyongyang in return for the freeze.
Hopefully it won't turn out like all the broken agreements of the last fifty years. I'd like to think it's a positive move and North Korea is earnest now that Nutpants is dead.
I had agreed with much of what you were saying up to this point. It really seems like you disagree with Obama so I would say you shouldn't be voting for him. The way I look at it is there has to be a line at which you will no longer vote for a person, if not your vote is entirely valueless. If you will always vote for the Democrat as long as they are slightly more left than the Republican then there is no reason for that Democrat or other Democratic politicians to move closer to you they just have to maintain a position slightly to the left of the Republicans. This contributes to the Overton Window shifting to the right as the Democrats view their left-wing base to be safe and they can attempt to pick up more conservative voters by moving more rightward.
I think a similar idea to what I'm getting at can be seen in The Ballot or the Bullet where Malcolm X expresses the idea that the Democrats would pay some lip-service towards civil rights to get the black vote and then once they are safely voting for them work with racists to further increase their own power.
Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.
You want a 4,350 or 43,500 member federal legislature?
We have a smaller legislature than the UK, and yet the House of Commons manages to get things done. In fact, they get more done than we could hope to for quite some time. So long as parliamentary rules are reformed in favour of, you know, legislating I wouldn't really say that any absolute number of Representatives is inherently unworkable, however the logistics involved would make some amounts seem a bit excessive. Particularly since 1/30,000 was considered for a time when the most cutting edge telecommunications technology was...a guy on a horse and the advanced methodology of reaching a larger audience was...speaking more loudly.
The old proposed amendment to regulate House members seems like it makes a bit of sense, stair stepping your way to a good balance.
Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.
It seems that voting for the lesser to two evils isn't working either. I admit there is close to 0 chance of my working. But it makes more sense to me to vote in terms of voting to vote for what you want and hope that politicians will see this and adjust to better represent your desires.
The way I see it right now both the Republicans and Democrats are driving the country off a cliff, the big difference being the speed at which they do so. What I want is to actually turn things around instead of choosing a slower decline even though I'm cynical enough to believe it is an pretty futile effort.
We've put a democrat in the White House for one bloody term and he hasn't gotten everything you wanted? Obama made several obvious pushes forward. Maybe if liberals wern't so quick to abandon the party that is going there way(and convincing themselves they are just as bad as the other guy) they would be a more viable base.
Obama enacts republican legislation? Political Reality, plus ACA totally worth everything
Suggest Obama Could have done better? Pie in the Sky
Point Out ACA as scored by every government agency does nothing to change health care crisis? Social Justice!
Point out real social justice issues have been ignored and gotten worse on almost every front? Crazy talk
Point out we're in a lost decade Economically? Your arguments make no sense
Provide references and citations? Needlessly Pedantic
Respond to out of bounds insults with in bounds insults and keep things on topic? You're an ass
Cool Story Bro.
Actually, they're pretty damn inaccurate. Polls from Afghanistan on the stay/go issue can swing maybe 50 percentage points hour to hour with the same sample size. The only real consistent results are that the Afghanis want the operations resulting in civilian deaths to stop but don't think the Afghani army is strong enough to stop all hell breaking loose.
Citation please. What factual evidence do you have that the Afghani people are fine with being blown up, having their throats slit in the night, being occupied by a foreign power that doesn't speak their language, living in a war zone, seeing young men be disappeared in the middle of the night by men in ski masks and getting the freedom to do what the local drug baron supported by the US tells them to do is a popular sentiment?
Businesses being punished by fines is futile. Make it jail time and other actual punishments that hurt the business or the people responsible for the decisions in a way they can't laugh off like being banned from said industries for x years or permanently and that will have an effect on white collar crimes being committed.
Only because of the size of the fees. If they were "comply or you put your business at risk of not existing anymore"-sized you'd probably see a lot more compliance.
If the size of the fine is less than the cost of insurance, and you're healthy, why would you buy insurance?
You keep saying that we don't care about dead Afghanis, and yet you also say that Karzai is a dead man if we leave. Don't you think militants will massacre everyone who was pro-government if we leave before the government can maintain control? How do all those dead pro-government Afghanis fit into the equation?
Is it possible that less Afghanis will die under our occupation then will in a full blown civil war? You make it sound like as soon as we withdraw, peace will return to the land.
Anecdote inbound! One of my family members recently returned from a tour in Afghanistan. He says the Afghan soldiers he worked with were terrified of a US withdraw.
This whole calculus, on the face of it, blatantly is racist and imperialist.
No one ever made the suggestion that we couldn't return France to French rule after the liberation during world war II. There were purges and executions of traitors there. Yet time and time again the US finds itself in situations where it has to save dark skinned people from themselves. By militarily occupying their country. Strange how those countries are usually either strategically important or resource rich or both. Weird how they didn't invite us in, in the first place.
Anecdote. I'm sure these guys if they were still alive would disagree with your family member.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"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
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I had agreed with much of what you were saying up to this point. It really seems like you disagree with Obama so I would say you shouldn't be voting for him. The way I look at it is there has to be a line at which you will no longer vote for a person, if not your vote is entirely valueless. If you will always vote for the Democrat as long as they are slightly more left than the Republican then there is no reason for that Democrat or other Democratic politicians to move closer to you they just have to maintain a position slightly to the left of the Republicans. This contributes to the Overton Window shifting to the right as the Democrats view their left-wing base to be safe and they can attempt to pick up more conservative voters by moving more rightward.
I think a similar idea to what I'm getting at can be seen in The Ballot or the Bullet where Malcolm X expresses the idea that the Democrats would pay some lip-service towards civil rights to get the black vote and then once they are safely voting for them work with racists to further increase their own power.
Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.
You want a 4,350 or 43,500 member federal legislature?
We have a smaller legislature than the UK, and yet the House of Commons manages to get things done. In fact, they get more done than we could hope to for quite some time. So long as parliamentary rules are reformed in favour of, you know, legislating I wouldn't really say that any absolute number of Representatives is inherently unworkable, however the logistics involved would make some amounts seem a bit excessive. Particularly since 1/30,000 was considered for a time when the most cutting edge telecommunications technology was...a guy on a horse and the advanced methodology of reaching a larger audience was...speaking more loudly.
The old proposed amendment to regulate House members seems like it makes a bit of sense, stair stepping your way to a good balance.
Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
The House of Commons only has twice the amount we have, that's much less than multiplying by ten. I'm not opposed to adding more members to the house, but multiplying by ten seems like a bad idea.
Posts
It's true install some politicians, call them democratically elected, get them to agree to what you want at the point of a gun. Totally on the Up and Up.
No U.
Edit: I should have expected this from you. Anytime we agree on anything you have to go full goose to gain back the respect of the tribe. Never go full goose.
There is a perfect example in Afghanistan. They Afghanis Hate the US and want the Soldiers OUT. Karzai knows the first thing that happens will be his head on a pike.
So He'll ask the US to stay. Has nothing to do with elections, democracy, stopping terrorism.
Obama won't leave because he doesnt want to look weak in an election year. The political calculus plays out in dead Americans and Dead Afghanis.
"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
Well I didn't mean release them from service (and flood the labor market), just bring them out of deployment. I'm not sure exactly what our military does when not deployed (training I guess) but I'm pretty sure the cost of an American troop at home is much less than the cost of occupation.
I don't mind giving him the benefit of the doubt, it was just such a huge reason I voted for him in 2008 (my wife got out of the army in 2002 and I constantly wonder what if she had been deployed and died for such a bullshit cause) that I have a hard time not being disappointed. I just really don't like it being spun as a positive thing he's accomplished like it was in the Sullivan article linked a while back in this thread. For me it will always be a negative mark but if you wanted to call it neutral (since he followed the baseline set by Bush) I wouldn't argue it.
But I think we're at an impasse here, so let's move on, eh?
It sure as hell is. Pretty damn cynical too, but I'm afraid I feel like that's where we're at.
There is a perfect example in Afghanistan. They Afghanis Hate the US and want the Soldiers OUT. Karzai knows the first thing that happens will be his head on a pike.
So He'll ask the US to stay. Has nothing to do with elections, democracy, stopping terrorism.
Obama won't leave because he doesnt want to look weak in an election year. The political calculus plays out in dead Americans and Dead Afghanis.
Feel free to call me a child and tell me to get my head out of my ass again.
Who cares about dead Americans and Dead Afghani NBD. Fight them over there or fight them over here right?
"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
Those are perfectly reasonable statements about Afghanistan. We were talking about Iraq. Also, we've already started leaving Afghanistan and I don't think Obama campaigned on that one. The Republicans are trying to turn this decision into a weakness for the Obama campaign, btw.
The sad truth is that most Americans don't care about Afghanistan, which is shameful but the truth.
The situation in Afghanistan is completely different from Iraq and wasn't what we were talking about.
You keep saying that we don't care about dead Afghanis, and yet you also say that Karzai is a dead man if we leave. Don't you think militants will massacre everyone who was pro-government if we leave before the government can maintain control? How do all those dead pro-government Afghanis fit into the equation?
Is it possible that less Afghanis will die under our occupation then will in a full blown civil war? You make it sound like as soon as we withdraw, peace will return to the land.
Anecdote inbound! One of my family members recently returned from a tour in Afghanistan. He says the Afghan soldiers he worked with were terrified of a US withdraw.
The examples are incredibly similar. There's no significant difference.
"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
Ladies and gentlemen: Iraq and Afghanistan are exactly the same, and everyone else in the discussion is a racist with an overinflated sense of American importance.
I mean, they both have sand and Muslims, amirite?
Businesses being punished by fines is futile. Make it jail time and other actual punishments that hurt the business or the people responsible for the decisions in a way they can't laugh off like being banned from said industries for x years or permanently and that will have an effect on white collar crimes being committed.
I didn't necessarily mean release all of them from service, but there are a lot of national guard over there still, or were, right? I'm going to be honest and say that I'm not as up and up on who's deployed where and from where and what branch. I'm not in the states any longer and living near a base anymore so it's harder to get perspective. But from what I thought the guardsmen/women/people would have been put back into civilian life and considering how many were over there.
I'm willing to totally admit that I'm wrong on that front. But I bring another front, we're having a hard enough time dealing with the PTSD cases as they came trickling back little by little, if everybody came back all at once?
But this is all just speculation, because the war happened the way it happened and we're at this stage now. It's not a resounding success for President Obama, but it's not an astounding defeat or betrayal. So yeah, I can agree with neutral on this.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Only because of the size of the fees. If they were "comply or you put your business at risk of not existing anymore"-sized you'd probably see a lot more compliance.
But then I'm a masochist.
Seriously Seruko do you think your posting has improved because you've replaced calling us a "Tribal eco-chamber" with starting every post you make with goose?
Yes I know AManfromearth said goose to, not the same.
We're not all unreasonable. Liberals do need to be more pragmatic but there's nothing that can't be worked out with compromises and understanding IMO.
Not to be insulting, I simply find this sentence funny. Whoever thought up "goose" for a swear word was a fucking genius. It's hilarious.
Agreed.
I'm saying that nobody goes after stupid rednecks because they're not competent enough to be a threat.
Actually, they're pretty damn inaccurate. Polls from Afghanistan on the stay/go issue can swing maybe 50 percentage points hour to hour with the same sample size. The only real consistent results are that the Afghanis want the operations resulting in civilian deaths to stop but don't think the Afghani army is strong enough to stop all hell breaking loose.
See this? This is why actually sticking to a Bush administration time frame is one of the greatest contrasts Obama could have made against the Bush administration. That's probably the thing that pisses off the Republicans the most, as Obama is constantly succeeding at what Bush only thought he was doing.
Had to fend off coworkers from the onslaught of accusing the President of making those FEMA camps to prepare detaining people. Plus the rest of the republican talking points.
Pretty sure it was Tube, and it's not a swear word, it's a generic replacement for any personal insult.
That's not an appeal to authority at all. There's every reason to assume President Obama gets far better information then candidate Obama, let alone you or I. To attempt to ignore this as a possible source of a change in position is incredibly dishonest.
Secondly, plans are made based on timelines. If Bush told the Iraqis "We are leaving on this data", they will plan the transition of authority to happen on that timetable. Asking them to change that timetable isn't necessarily feasible or a good thing. This isn't "6 years of occupation to get ready". That doesn't even make sense in light of how ANYTHING in the real world is planned.
Is...is this what it's like for moderate conservatives to debate with tea partiers?
And all so we can agree that Obama isn't the second coming of Christ, but we are going to vote for him anyway. Good fucking show.
I had agreed with much of what you were saying up to this point. It really seems like you disagree with Obama so I would say you shouldn't be voting for him. The way I look at it is there has to be a line at which you will no longer vote for a person, if not your vote is entirely valueless. If you will always vote for the Democrat as long as they are slightly more left than the Republican then there is no reason for that Democrat or other Democratic politicians to move closer to you they just have to maintain a position slightly to the left of the Republicans. This contributes to the Overton Window shifting to the right as the Democrats view their left-wing base to be safe and they can attempt to pick up more conservative voters by moving more rightward.
I think a similar idea to what I'm getting at can be seen in The Ballot or the Bullet where Malcolm X expresses the idea that the Democrats would pay some lip-service towards civil rights to get the black vote and then once they are safely voting for them work with racists to further increase their own power.
If I remember correctly, the Iraqis chose people for their top positions that the US "didn't support". Can anyone else confirm whether this is so?
No it wouldn't. Large fees would bankrupt the smaller businesses, but the larger businesses would just buy up those parts and go on to pollute more and incorporate those fees into their expenses. Then use their amassed wealth to lobby and campaign for lawmakers who will lower the fees back down again. Look at how much the pork industry which is largely run by one corporation gets away with. You can't make a fee large enough to stop pollution without nationalizing the industry. Jail time seems more effective to me. For sustained systemic violation pull their corporate charter and pay out in reverse normal order, goverment first, then litigates, then debtors, then bonds, then stockholders (voting stock last), then executives last if there's anything at all left over. There needs to be a death penalty for corporations.
Who do you jail, and why can't the fines simply be levied on a per capita basis?
Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.
You want a 4,350 or 43,500 member federal legislature?
It seems that voting for the lesser to two evils isn't working either. I admit there is close to 0 chance of my working. But it makes more sense to me to vote in terms of voting to vote for what you want and hope that politicians will see this and adjust to better represent your desires.
The way I see it right now both the Republicans and Democrats are driving the country off a cliff, the big difference being the speed at which they do so. What I want is to actually turn things around instead of choosing a slower decline even though I'm cynical enough to believe it is an pretty futile effort.
I'd respond by noting that before you can reverse direction you need to slow your current path. So even if you have to hold your nose, you need to support the guy trying to apply the breaks.
This is from that Rolling Stone article posted a few pages ago, and I couldn't possibly agree more strongly.
EDIT: Actually, I think that article was posted in the GOP Primary thread. But my point still stands. Here's a link to it since it also seems fairly relavent to a discussion of Obama.
We've put a democrat in the White House for one bloody term and he hasn't gotten everything you wanted? Obama made several obvious pushes forward. Maybe if liberals wern't so quick to abandon the party that is going there way(and convincing themselves they are just as bad as the other guy) they would be a more viable base.
Sometimes you just gotta shoot yourself in the foot to let someone know you're serious.
Obama = Bush is neither helpful nor accurate, Seruko. You believe it to be the case, I'll take your word for that. It has no bearing going forward, however. Can we please talk about what's going on with the administration now?
Like... say the birth control compromise?
Or the Republican claims that lowering the aid budget for Israel imply that Obama is abandoning the Jewish people?
You know, stuff that isn't focussed directly on cherry picking old data for purposes of some mysterious agenda of Bush-equating?
Actually now that you mention it I'd like to hear more about this NK deal if anybody has anything.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-17215805
Cautious welcome for North Korea nuclear freeze
Hopefully it won't turn out like all the broken agreements of the last fifty years. I'd like to think it's a positive move and North Korea is earnest now that Nutpants is dead.
Wait and see I suppose.
We have a smaller legislature than the UK, and yet the House of Commons manages to get things done. In fact, they get more done than we could hope to for quite some time. So long as parliamentary rules are reformed in favour of, you know, legislating I wouldn't really say that any absolute number of Representatives is inherently unworkable, however the logistics involved would make some amounts seem a bit excessive. Particularly since 1/30,000 was considered for a time when the most cutting edge telecommunications technology was...a guy on a horse and the advanced methodology of reaching a larger audience was...speaking more loudly.
The old proposed amendment to regulate House members seems like it makes a bit of sense, stair stepping your way to a good balance.
Obama enacts republican legislation? Political Reality, plus ACA totally worth everything
Suggest Obama Could have done better? Pie in the Sky
Point Out ACA as scored by every government agency does nothing to change health care crisis? Social Justice!
Point out real social justice issues have been ignored and gotten worse on almost every front? Crazy talk
Point out we're in a lost decade Economically? Your arguments make no sense
Provide references and citations? Needlessly Pedantic
Respond to out of bounds insults with in bounds insults and keep things on topic? You're an ass
Cool Story Bro.
Citation please. What factual evidence do you have that the Afghani people are fine with being blown up, having their throats slit in the night, being occupied by a foreign power that doesn't speak their language, living in a war zone, seeing young men be disappeared in the middle of the night by men in ski masks and getting the freedom to do what the local drug baron supported by the US tells them to do is a popular sentiment?
If the size of the fine is less than the cost of insurance, and you're healthy, why would you buy insurance?
This whole calculus, on the face of it, blatantly is racist and imperialist.
No one ever made the suggestion that we couldn't return France to French rule after the liberation during world war II. There were purges and executions of traitors there. Yet time and time again the US finds itself in situations where it has to save dark skinned people from themselves. By militarily occupying their country. Strange how those countries are usually either strategically important or resource rich or both. Weird how they didn't invite us in, in the first place.
Anecdote. I'm sure these guys if they were still alive would disagree with your family member.
"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
The House of Commons only has twice the amount we have, that's much less than multiplying by ten. I'm not opposed to adding more members to the house, but multiplying by ten seems like a bad idea.