Obama's impeachable Offenses(link) [Archive]

CCIP

02-08-12, 12:56 AM

Alright guys, let's not attack the messenger, but check the message. That's the real problem here.

In all seriousness, here's also one reason that Obama is not going to get impeached for these reasons: because that would set a precedent that neither party can afford to risk. It would be very short-sighted of them to kick out a president for, at best, bending constitutional interpretations to his agenda - because as soon as they do, then good luck avoiding the same for future presidents. Yes, it might be smart to slap the executive on the wrist for throwing around its authority (as Obama did on several occasions), but what makes you think that having a legislative branch than can throw out a prez at whim is in any way better? More importantly, what makes you (as the law student around here) think that this won't give a dangerous legal precedent to the supreme court?

The fact is that the election cycle does a much better job of this without upsetting the balance, and it has already given Obama plenty of kicks. But if you want to get rid of a president altogether, you're gonna have to come up with much better and more popularly-supported competition, and do so in the election cycle - something that the GOP is failing miserably at as we speak. But wait, of course - the Right is right and, unlike that darn scheming socialist agenda, the Tea Party knows exactly what America needs, regardless of how the electorate actually votes. Cause the electorate is after all dumb and gullible and doesn't know what it really needs, right?

Some democratic logic there!

MothBalls

02-08-12, 12:57 AM

Obama's impeachable Offenses(link)Even the title looks like it was written by a 5th grader. We are supposed to believe this person is going to be a lawyer?

Anyway, I myself have committed many impeachable offenses. In fact I'm about to go commit one right now. I wonder if it'll make the headlines?

Tribesman

02-08-12, 02:58 AM

my pinko-commie professors
Your teachers must indeed be rubbish, after all they are producing a law expert who doesn't even know what allegation means:rotfl2:

Sailor Steve

02-08-12, 12:50 PM

Alright guys, let's not attack the messenger, but check the message. That's the real problem here.
In this case the so-called messenger deserves what he gets. He is limited to repeating the same tired message over and over and over, without fail, without thought and without sense.

Some democratic logic there!
You attempt to use "logic" on someone who doesn't begin to understand the meaning of the term.

AVGWarhawk

02-08-12, 01:24 PM

Ignore button. Use it.

I'm set to ignore for many members. Seems to be working out for them. In fact, I have been ignored since 2005.

Platapus

02-08-12, 01:34 PM

jumpy

02-08-12, 01:35 PM

So, where does it say he ****** the intern?

antikristuseke

02-08-12, 02:52 PM

I've long since given up waiting for Bubblehead (a good name that) to post anything reasonable. It's just never going to happen.

He can't possibly be any more hopeless than I am.

Ducimus

02-08-12, 05:03 PM

Ignore button. Use it.

I'm set to ignore for many members. Seems to be working out for them. In fact, I have been ignored since 2005.

OR, or maybe, in addition to.... just don't stop in General Topics for awhile. It's been a few days for me, and i find this thread great for an afternoon chuckle.

vienna

02-08-12, 06:28 PM

First, i would just like to say, there is no way Obama is going to be impeached based on the babblings of some Limbaugh/Hannity/FoxNews spouting loon, be he a member of Congress or some questionable law professor...

However, this deserves a second look:

In all seriousness, here's also one reason that Obama is not going to get impeached for these reasons: because that would set a precedent that neither party can afford to risk. It would be very short-sighted of them to kick out a president for, at best, bending constitutional interpretations to his agenda - because as soon as they do, then good luck avoiding the same for future presidents. Yes, it might be smart to slap the executive on the wrist for throwing around its authority (as Obama did on several occasions), but what makes you think that having a legislative branch than can throw out a prez at whim is in any way better? More importantly, what makes you (as the law student around here) think that this won't give a dangerous legal precedent to the supreme court?

Anyone else remember the sight of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, strutting about pompously in a robe he said was copied from a design in a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta, through the halls of the House and presiding over a farce engineered by NeoCon GOP members in an attempt to impeach and remove a sitting President over charges not even an -Nth of a degree as "serious" as those given by the law professor? Because of that little fiasco, the question of legal precedence is a ship that has already sailed...

Sadly, for the GOP, the axiom of "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" has not taken hold. The little sideshows, such as the "Birthers", among others, is seriously obscuring any meaningful impact the GOP could have with the voting public...

Oberon

02-08-12, 07:10 PM

I think the most serious question to ask here is...

Why are people taking this thread seriously?

Stop it. :O:

CCIP

02-08-12, 08:12 PM

Anyone else remember the sight of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, strutting about pompously in a robe he said was copied from a design in a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta, through the halls of the House and presiding over a farce engineered by NeoCon GOP members in an attempt to impeach and remove a sitting President over charges not even an -Nth of a degree as "serious" as those given by the law professor? Because of that little fiasco, the question of legal precedence is a ship that has already sailed...

Good point! It was, in fairness, a failed impeachment, but it did set some very dangerous possibilities open for the future. That said, I wouldn't take the threat very seriously right now. I don't think those same neocon GOP members are in a position to benefit from this kind of scenario at the moment anyway. If they can't take Obama down in the elections, they would probably only polarize and offend voters more by maneuvers like this.

I think the most serious question to ask here is...

Why are people taking this thread seriously?

Stop it. :O:

We're nerds and can't help it :O:

Buddahaid

02-08-12, 09:23 PM

Good point! It was, in fairness, a failed impeachment, but it did set some very dangerous possibilities open for the future. That said, I wouldn't take the threat very seriously right now. I don't think those same neocon GOP members are in a position to benefit from this kind of scenario at the moment anyway. If they can't take Obama down in the elections, they would probably only polarize and offend voters more by maneuvers like this.

We're nerds and can't help it :O:

That implies logic that often defies a mob mentality which would seem to be an apt description these days. It's not beyond the possible simply by inertia.

Torplexed

02-08-12, 09:47 PM

No matter what year or political season it is, impeachment talk is always dirt cheap. :zzz:

yubba

02-08-12, 10:20 PM

When it all goes to hell in a hand basket what will it matter, we'll be too busy in our backyards looking for worms to eat.

nikimcbee

02-08-12, 10:56 PM

http://cdn.head-fi.org/d/d1/d111892f_t_drooling_homer_2141.gif

looking for worms to eat.

HHHHM, free protein

soopaman2

02-09-12, 12:15 PM

I love how Obama is generalized as a communist or socialist. When him and nearly all politician are more fascist in policies than anything. Socialist really? You guys love bailing out banks, but hate Cost of Living raises for the elderly. How is it socialism when you pay into it your entire life, then it is used to fund a war. That sounds more like thievery to me. Blame the poor for our governments excesses. Yeah spoken like a true fascist.

Or is the OP just so blindly partisan he can't see the evils of our system as a whole?

I feel sorry for you, and mean that in a heartfelt way. It makes perfect sense why we have the government we do right now.

Joseph McCarthy (R) called, he wants his lingo, and 60 year old cold war fear mongering back.

misha1967

02-09-12, 12:25 PM

No doubt. When I hear a student throw an epithet in my direction, I think that this must be a student that is coming to class with an open mind and hearing what I have to say; a student that is seeking to better himself by considering all points of view before formulating an opinion.

There is a lot of truth in that snark, Takeda.

On the other hand, I have to say that as I have grown older and wiser in the ways of the world, I have learned that there are subjects where a dismissive attitude is the correct one. At least the ones that you've heard and debunked so many times before that having to repeat it has become tedious beyond belief.

I still listen, though. Then, if it turns out the argument belongs in the "the Moon landings were faked!" category, I just shake my had, chuckle and move along.

Hottentot

02-09-12, 12:35 PM

soopaman2

02-09-12, 12:45 PM

You enjoy your worms.

I'll be drinking my victory brand gin, and smoking crap cigs where most the tobacco falls out.

Better than what the proles get at least. Oh it is time for the 3 minute hate, where we curse Emmanuel Goldstien (Osama, Iran, Syria) and praise the patriot act.

I wonder what the backlash would be if the Patriot act was founded under Obama....

Hmmm?

If you miss our current direction towards something Orwell wrote, then you are blind.

And yes, the blame is truly partyless, it is our fault, for choosing a political sportsteam mentality for our nation.

misha1967

02-09-12, 01:30 PM

I wonder what the backlash would be if the Patriot act was founded under Obama....

Hmmm?

Come to think of it: Wasn't that horrible violation of privacy rights, the Patriot Act, renewed three times by Obama?

And how come that drone strikes etc. are suddenly a-OK now that it's not an evil Republican doing them?

What's the word I'm looking for? Begins with an "H"... Hmm... Still working on it. Rhymes with "leprosy"...

Ah yes, I've got it: Hypocrisy!

soopaman2

02-09-12, 01:46 PM

Come to think of it: Wasn't that horrible violation of privacy rights, the Patriot Act, renewed three times by Obama?

And how come that drone strikes etc. are suddenly a-OK now that it's not an evil Republican doing them?

What's the word I'm looking for? Begins with an "H"... Hmm... Still working on it. Rhymes with "leprosy"...

Ah yes, I've got it: Hypocrisy!

Your point? Maybe if a repub strong congress didn't fillibuster anything that would help the people in order to make the nigg, I uhh mean Barry Soetoro, Err Obama into a one term president, as admitted, we would be in a better place today.

But because partisan politics, and pledges to Grover Norquist are more important than the people, and what is best to the country, I suppose us normal folks have to take the abuse.

You ask as if I like my current president. He is simply better than the other options.

I'm still waiting for the "for the people, by the people part"

So you think me contradictory, because I like the black kenyan in office.

Better than the options sir.

Hypocrite? (does not rhyme with leprosy, kinda a stretch) No, I simply want our rights back, that we bent over and gave them out of fear after 9-11.

Crap like this, the extensions as you mentioned is what makes me believe we are similar to fascist Italy at this point.

But conservatives like the status quo, see my sig on my opinions of how well the status quo works.

Feed the corps, starves the proles. The true southern conservative way.

To think we once freed the slaves, now our government works to make all of slaves to it super PAC benfactors, thanks citizens United decision, a conservative supreme court ruling...

And you wonder why people are forced to democrats?

Give us a viable non partisan choice. No anti tax pledges to Grover Norquist. No backroom dealings with George Soros. For the freaking people, by the people.

or else....
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ***8212; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ***8212; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ***8212; Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

It is our right to change it, regardless of anti protesting laws they may pass. These rights were given to us by our founders, who saw us as free men, not corporate puppets.

So tell us why you hate Obama? I already blew any socialist arguments out the water, it is well established he is as fascist as any (R)...

Sooooo.

AVGWarhawk

02-09-12, 01:52 PM

You ask as if I like my current president. He is simply better than the other options.

No sir..he is about the same as the other options.

soopaman2

02-09-12, 02:13 PM

No sir..he is about the same as the other options.

I have no counterpoint to offer, nor will I.

As leftist as I come across, I have voted republican more times in my adult life.

My defense of the spinless one is not partisanship, but a fear of the far right winger choices.

Mc Cain was so moderate, why did Palin have to mess it up for him? Why? Why? Why?

I was a McCain (warhero centrist republican) shoe in until Palin came around. She makes Joe Biden look like FDR.

vienna

02-09-12, 02:25 PM

And how come that drone strikes etc. are suddenly a-OK now that it's not an evil Republican doing them?

Possibly because the strikes done now seem to obliterate higher value targets (Al Queda leadership. Taliban leaders, etc) than when the previous administration launched their strikes; to paraphrase Voltaire, "Sucess is the best deodorant"...

vienna

02-09-12, 02:38 PM

Mc Cain was so moderate, why did Palin have to mess it up for him? Why? Why? Why?

I was a McCain (warhero centrist republican) shoe in until Palin came around. She makes Joe Biden look like FDR.

Amen to that!...

I have a rather cynical acquaintance who has this theory: the GOP leadership knew just how badly the Bush administration had screwed up the economy and they knew the worst was yet to come as a result of those failures after Bush left office; not wanting a GOP member in the White House when the Bandini hit the fan, they put a "poison pill" in the 2008 campaign in the form of Palin. Therefore, a Dem presides over the maelstrom of economic failure, the GOP gets a "free kick" in the form of having a Dem to kick around with minimal blame on themselves, and then the GOP can take back the White House just as they economy begins to come around, taking credit for the "rescue of" the economy...

I don't think this was a GOP master plan, because I don't think the GOP leadership is that smart (as evidenced by the "sterling" candidates they are fielding, so far), but, I must admit, if the idea didn't sound like something out of a political novel, it would rate some consideration... :hmmm:

soopaman2

02-09-12, 02:43 PM

I like the drone strikes.

It don't cost me a plane ticket to DC to attend family members funerals.

Ceremonies at Arlington are beautiful, but twice as sad for some reason...

Maybe because you know they died for rich people, and Cheneys little mercenary company.

But I am just a pinko commie pig right?

soopaman2

02-09-12, 02:50 PM

Amen to that!...

I have a rather cynical acquaintance who has this theory: the GOP leadership knew just how badly the Bush administration had screwed up the economy and they new the worst was yet to come as a result of those failures after Bush left office; not wanting a GOP member in the White House when the Bandini hit the fan, they put a "poison pill" in the 2008 campaign in the form of Palin. Therefore, a Dem presides over the maelstrom of economic failure, the GOP gets a "free kick" in the form of having a Dem to kick around with minimal blame on themselves, and then the GOP can take back the White House just as they economy begins to come around, taking credit for the "rescue of" the economy...

I don't think this was a GOP master plan, because I don't think the GOP leadership is that smart (as evidenced by the "sterling" candidates they are fielding, so far), but, I must admit, if the idea didn't sound like something out of a political novel, it would rate some consideration... :hmmm:

Pardon my back to back posts, but I type slow and caught this late.

But YES!

They were simply setting themselves up for 2012, and were willing to drive the country into the toilet to meet those goals.

Obama is going to win by default. Not because he is good, but because is is less harmful to the majority than the other options. Good job Repubs, no one else to blame but your extremism.

The man who says little, has more credibility than the man who says too much....Add that to the damn proverb thread, Soopaman2 said it, quote me..

Bubblehead1980

02-09-12, 04:04 PM

How did you even graduate high school?

Typos happen:salute:

Bubblehead1980

02-09-12, 04:11 PM

Love him or hate him, Tribesman did bring up a good point when he pointed out that Bubs like to throw around the "I'm in law school" line like it gives his statements more weight, but then he turns around and talks about how the professors are pinko commies who run leftist socialist indoctrination courses. You can't have it both ways.

A well known fact is that academia is dominated by lefties.I have a few professors who are fair but most are far left and make it pretty well known.I mentioned( just a few times) that I am in law school because it is a pertinent fact when discussing certain things namely law etc , not because I am attempting to give my statements more "weight" as you put it.

joegrundman

02-09-12, 04:17 PM

Takeda Shingen

02-09-12, 04:20 PM

No sir..he is about the same as the other options.

That's about right. American politics is a revolving door of failed ideology that is very good at kicking out anyone who offers any tangible change.

Bubblehead1980

02-09-12, 04:24 PM

You must be very popular at school.

Left wingers hate me, esp when they get owned in class which is fine because I despise them more than anything, left wing ideology has done more damage to this country than any other, it is like a cancer.Trust me far right has as well, but not like the left.Fellow conservatives or moderates are the people I get along with and thus make up my friends.What I love is how certain people to try to pick apart things I write on here for spelling errors that are typos, nothing more. I usually author this stuff in a hurry so no spell check etc unlike a paper I turn in which is checked meticulously.Pick apart the bs details on a forum instead of the message, typical.

Certain members believe because they are older they are wiser etc, in some cases sure but not always, I have always disliked the arrogance people have just because they are older.Age does not equal intelligence and wisdom by default.

Bubblehead1980

02-09-12, 04:26 PM

Bubblehead1980

02-09-12, 04:26 PM

Bubblehead1980

02-09-12, 04:36 PM

Your point? Maybe if a repub strong congress didn't fillibuster anything that would help the people in order to make the nigg, I uhh mean Barry Soetoro, Err Obama into a one term president, as admitted, we would be in a better place today.

But because partisan politics, and pledges to Grover Norquist are more important than the people, and what is best to the country, I suppose us normal folks have to take the abuse.

You ask as if I like my current president. He is simply better than the other options.

I'm still waiting for the "for the people, by the people part"

So you think me contradictory, because I like the black kenyan in office.

Better than the options sir.

Hypocrite? (does not rhyme with leprosy, kinda a stretch) No, I simply want our rights back, that we bent over and gave them out of fear after 9-11.

Crap like this, the extensions as you mentioned is what makes me believe we are similar to fascist Italy at this point.

But conservatives like the status quo, see my sig on my opinions of how well the status quo works.

Feed the corps, starves the proles. The true southern conservative way.

To think we once freed the slaves, now our government works to make all of slaves to it super PAC benfactors, thanks citizens United decision, a conservative supreme court ruling...

And you wonder why people are forced to democrats?

Give us a viable non partisan choice. No anti tax pledges to Grover Norquist. No backroom dealings with George Soros. For the freaking people, by the people.

or else....

It is our right to change it, regardless of anti protesting laws they may pass. These rights were given to us by our founders, who saw us as free men, not corporate puppets.

So tell us why you hate Obama? I already blew any socialist arguments out the water, it is well established he is as fascist as any (R)...

Sooooo.

Citizens united, while it has crappy consequences, is a correct and sound ruling constitutionally speaking.However, I hate the real world consequences as did the Justices no doubt but that is the difference.The intellectually honest justices(the conservatives) did their job and did not legislate from the bench of vote their political compass, they followed the constitution as a justice is supposed to do, without consideration of what might happen.Liberals were against it and voted against it because in their mind "to hell with the constitution, this might be bad for the process."

Example, I think the catholic church's position on contraception is just outright ignorant of the real world consequences of unwanted pregnancies or too many people in this world, but it is their constitutional right of religious freedom to not offer contraception coverage to their employeesa as well as not having the government try to dictate to them on this issue.Some left leaning judge will no doubt rule against them because of their opinion instead of following the constitution.

Bubblehead1980

02-09-12, 04:39 PM

Just like with Bush, If this person has evidence of an impeachable offense against the President, then they need to contact their representative in the House of Representatives. That's the process.

Not writing media articles.

If they are not willing to go through the official process, why would I think their article has any credibility?

Well if we have a GOP Senate and House, perhaps impeachment will be tried if he is reelectedl but then again, maybe not because many in the congress as just as guilty as he is.

vienna

02-09-12, 04:42 PM

I mentioned( just a few times) that I am in law school because it is a pertinent fact when discussing certain things namely law etc , not because I am attempting to give my statements more "weight" as you put it.

Actually, it does tend to come off as rather like the Star Jones spoofs on SNL where "Jones", a member of the "View" panel of ladies, would always preface 'her' comments with the phrase "...and, I am a lawyer,..."; doing so does not add weight to an argument unless:

the question were soley a matter of law;
being in law school had any relevance to the question;
the level of the education were of a caliber to influence the opinion on a question, e.g., the opinion of a 1st year student verus a student in their final semester; even then, it would also only matter if the student was a 'specialist' in the relevant legal field (Constitutional law rather than tort law, for example...)
Quite frankly, I would rather take the opinion of full-fledged, experienced doctor over a 1st year medical student. This is not intended as a rip against you or your ambitions; I respect people who choose to take the challenge of a difficult field. But, don't mistake knowledge for expertise, and, conversely, don't mistake expertise for absolute knowledge...

As an aside, this reminds me of the psychology students I have known over the years who, after having started taking a few classes, attempt to psychoanalyze their friends and family; you wish them the best, but you also wish they would wait until they actually knew their profession...

Bubblehead1980

02-09-12, 04:43 PM

No matter what year or political season it is, impeachment talk is always dirt cheap. :zzz:

not this time, he has done more than just lie.I could see an attempt to impeach him if he is reelected because he will be ever more dangerous when he does not have to answer to the voters.

Bubblehead1980

02-09-12, 04:47 PM

Actually, it does tend to come off as rather like the Star Jones spoofs on SNL where "Jones", a member of the "View" panel of ladies, would always preface 'her' comments with the phrase "...and, I am a lawyer,..."; doing so does not add weight to an argument unless:

the question were soley a matter of law;
being in law school had any relevance to the question;
the level of the education were of a caliber to influence the opinion on a question, e.g., the opinion of a 1st year student verus a student in their final semester; even then, it would also only matter if the student was a 'specialist' in the relevant legal field (Constitutional law rather than tort law, for example...)

Quite frankly, I would rather take the opinion of full-fledged, experienced doctor over a 1st year medical student. This is not intended as a rip against you or your ambitions; I respect people who choose to take the challenge of a difficult field. But, don't mistake knowledge for expertise, and, conversely, don't mistake expertise for absolute knowledge...

As an aside, this reminds me of the psychology students I have known over the years who, after having started taking a few classes, attempt to psychoanalyze their friends and family; you wish them the best, but you also wish they would wait until they actually knew their profession...

haha those were great skits:rotfl2:

Well that is not how I meant to come across but felt it was relevant to mention at times and still believe it is.

MothBalls

02-09-12, 05:13 PM

I mentioned( just a few times) that I am in law schoolDo they have English classes available there? You know, the ones that teach you sentence structure, punctuation, grammar, and vocabulary. I thought it might have been a prerequisite.

Sailor Steve

02-09-12, 05:15 PM

Typos happen:salute:
But unless you're lazy they usually get corrected.

Tribesman

02-10-12, 02:50 AM

Left wingers hate me, esp when they get owned in class
By "owned" do you mean when you do a little bubblerant and they don't reply?
Sorry to break it to ya but if you look they are probably not replying because they are either trying not to laugh too much or realised that you are a waste of time since you are blinded by ideology.

Take a step back bubbles, when you say that all the students are dumb and cannot debate your "points" or string together a coherent sentence in response does it not even enter your mind that it is you that is the one....?

A well known fact is that academia is dominated by lefties
Yes bubbles:doh:
Can you find a thing called a dictionary and look up the word "fact".
Look up the word "left" too in a political context and find the definition where it is put as "anything that is not a fruitloop wingnut conspiracy theorist":rotfl2:

Stealhead

02-10-12, 03:17 PM

vienna

02-10-12, 03:33 PM

I dont know about others but I do not choose my friends based on their ideologies as Bubblehead does what matters to me is are they are good person are they a good friend to me not who they vote for or what their political leanings are.

I second the above. I have had many friends and/or acquaintances who have been the polar opposite of me on various subjects, political, social or any other category you could name. I may not have agreed with them, but I respected their views and welcomed their comments. As long as the basic civilities were observed and humor maintained, those encounters have been some of the most interesting I have experienced. I didn't try to overtly change their minds or convert them and they offered me the same respect. Life is extremely wearisome and boring when you are surrounded only by people who doggedly agree with you on everything...

misha1967

02-10-12, 04:32 PM

Your point? Maybe if a repub strong congress didn't fillibuster anything that would help the people in order to make the nigg, I uhh mean Barry Soetoro, Err Obama into a one term president, as admitted, we would be in a better place today.

Wow. Touchy, aren't we? :DL

Now, as to the "it's all the Republicans' fault", I'd like to point out to you that from 2008-2010 the Democrats were in firm control of both the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. Those Republicans sure are effective!

No, I don't "hate" Obama, nor do I care one little bit about the color of his skin. I've never cared about anybody's skin color, and I'm not about to start doing so now. You won't find me calling any criticism of Obama "racist".

It'd be much easier for us to fulfill Dr. Martin Luther King's dream about color blindness if certain parties would stop screaming about it all the time.

More importantly: You seem to say that you'd like for our government to return to being a government by the people, of the people and for the people with the consent of the governed?

Great! Welcome aboard! We're absolutely, positively, right on the same side on that one. Absolutely no need for the two of us to be at each other's throats there, because we completely agree.

And, lest you think that I'm just ranting against the Democrats here, which I'm not, let me be the first to say that the Republicans haven't been much better. They're the ones who started off the whole Patriot Act nonsense which mutated from being a way of defending ourselves against further 9/11s into TSA agents molesting us and our children when we try to get on an airplane. The Republicans did nothing to stop that either, as a matter of fact it was a Republican Congress that created the TSA fool agency.

I guess that I'm saying that we, as a people, aren't being served well by either side, and I agree that that needs to change. Both parties are currently two chips off of the same rotten block of wood.

So calm down. We're on the same side here :DL

Tribesman

02-10-12, 07:23 PM

I must admit I am a little baffled by the claim that "academia is dominated by lefties".
Well perhaps it needs to be put in perspective, leave aside all his previous writing, leave aside all the claims that have gone before, just see what the scope is........

I have list many of these to my pinko-commie professors, nice to see someone gets them published.

OK leave aside that first bit as that might instantly colour your view of whoever posted it....so someone published it...a website which publishes stuff for truthers, birthers, new world order conspiracies, FEMA death camps and incredibly even the mysterious dreaded contrails:rotfl2:
But OK hold on maybe its a good article that slipped in with the rest of the crazy crap they published so we shouldn't laugh yet.....its written by a constitutional expert:up: thats good.... who also happens to be an expert on finding....ghosts:rotfl2:

soopaman2

02-10-12, 07:32 PM

Wow. Touchy, aren't we? :DL

Now, as to the "it's all the Republicans' fault", I'd like to point out to you that from 2008-2010 the Democrats were in firm control of both the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. Those Republicans sure are effective!

No, I don't "hate" Obama, nor do I care one little bit about the color of his skin. I've never cared about anybody's skin color, and I'm not about to start doing so now. You won't find me calling any criticism of Obama "racist".

It'd be much easier for us to fulfill Dr. Martin Luther King's dream about color blindness if certain parties would stop screaming about it all the time.

More importantly: You seem to say that you'd like for our government to return to being a government by the people, of the people and for the people with the consent of the governed?

Great! Welcome aboard! We're absolutely, positively, right on the same side on that one. Absolutely no need for the two of us to be at each other's throats there, because we completely agree.

And, lest you think that I'm just ranting against the Democrats here, which I'm not, let me be the first to say that the Republicans haven't been much better. They're the ones who started off the whole Patriot Act nonsense which mutated from being a way of defending ourselves against further 9/11s into TSA agents molesting us and our children when we try to get on an airplane. The Republicans did nothing to stop that either, as a matter of fact it was a Republican Congress that created the TSA fool agency.

I guess that I'm saying that we, as a people, aren't being served well by either side, and I agree that that needs to change. Both parties are currently two chips off of the same rotten block of wood.

So calm down. We're on the same side here :DL

Please do not take it as if I think R's caused all the problem.

While I think they (R's) caused most of the problem (IMHO sorry), they (dems) are not truly blameless. Perhaps I am wrong. I can admit it if need be.

The D's are a problem too, they represent the same multiple headed Cerberus monster that is eating our countries wealth and prosperity.

It is almost like asking if you want to be hung or crucified, one is fast, the other is slow, both results in your death.

It saddens me that I feel so skeptical about my country. Maybe it is why i seem so revolutionary at times. We can change this.

Edit: This country needs more objective people, than knee jerk voters.

Like how Eddie Murphy got voted into office from simple name recognition in the movie "the Distinguished Gentleman"

Sure it is Hollywood, but too many uninformed voters exist to make that film plausible.

Stealhead

02-10-12, 07:50 PM

We can change this.

Actions speak louder than words a lot of people say this but nothing ever happens more than likely because there are too many people with far left or far right leanings who think everyone else is stupid and should be despised are out there.No government is perfect and can satisfy every citizen there are just to many differing views for this to be anywhere near possible.A short time after the US gained independence came the first upsetting of much of the citizenship with the tax on whiskey better known as the Whiskey Rebellion.We still have liquor taxes.:hmmm:

If you read about out the legislative branch of the US has more less always had corrupt senators and congressmen or ones that at least greatly favored their constituency over what was best for the entire nation.

The problem is someone running for office can say they will do this or that and seem very anti status quo but when they get to D.C. they very quickly find that they are going to be able to do very little assuming they really wanted to do so much in the first place.I think the best cure would be to introduce term limits.

krashkart

02-10-12, 07:51 PM

You must be very popular at school.

Not to mention respectful, modest, and no doubt highly successful.

I am mostly uneducated and already thoroughly impressed with the opening post. Fantastic stuff! :yeah:

%****... :shifty:

soopaman2

02-10-12, 08:17 PM

Actions speak louder than words a lot of people say this but nothing ever happens more than likely because there are too many people with far left or far right leanings who think everyone else is stupid and should be despised are out there.No government is perfect and can satisfy every citizen there are just to many differing views for this to be anywhere near possible.A short time after the US gained independence came the first upsetting of much of the citizenship with the tax on whiskey better known as the Whiskey Rebellion.We still have liquor taxes.:hmmm:

If you read about out the legislative branch of the US has more less always had corrupt senators and congressmen or ones that at least greatly favored their constituency over what was best for the entire nation.

The problem is someone running for office can say they will do this or that and seem very anti status quo but when they get to D.C. they very quickly find that they are going to be able to do very little assuming they really wanted to do so much in the first place.I think the best cure would be to introduce term limits.

Yes. I promise to do this, but now that I am elected and entrenched in my position "forget" you (as Cee lo Green says, you know that forget is really a 4 letter curse right?)

You ever heard of Cincinnatus?

He was given dictator powers from the the senate of Rome. He won his war, reliquished his powers and went back to his farm. George Washington tried to follow this example. He was a shoe-in for the first American King, but wanted no part.

I am so for term limits, perhaps we will have more people like Washington and Cincinnatus rather than Gingriches or Romneys.

mookiemookie

02-10-12, 08:55 PM

The problem is someone running for office can say they will do this or that and seem very anti status quo but when they get to D.C. they very quickly find that they are going to be able to do very little assuming they really wanted to do so much in the first place.I think the best cure would be to introduce term limits.

You can run on any platform you like, but once you get to DC, the party whip greets you and says "Ok, the party will support you on this, this and this, but when you said that - forget it. Not happening. We'll help you out so long as you help us out and vote with the rest of the caucus or you'll be a one termer. Got it? Good. Now let's go have drinks with the lobbyists."

soopaman2

02-10-12, 08:59 PM

You can run on any platform you like, but once you get to DC, the party whip greets you and says "Ok, the party will support you on this, this and this, but when you said that - forget it. Not happening. We'll help you out so long as you help us out and vote with the rest of the caucus or you'll be a one termer. Got it? Good. Now let's go have drinks with the lobbyists."

What could anyone add to this but...

:salute::salute::salute::salute::salute:
:yeah::yeah::yeah::yeah::yeah:
:up::up::up::up::up::up::up::up:

It is what it is.

So a constructive question...

What can we do about it?
Nothing, except outright revolt will please them, and I doubt the ability of the national guard to fire on civvies.

Then again seeing as how police treated non violent protestors this fall in NYC, we are lucky we do not have concentration camps.

(call me full of crap, until I link abuse vids from you tube, from multiple cities. Tony Baloney (Anthony Balongna) is a real cop, macing sitting women...)

Or do we..FEMA?

krashkart

02-10-12, 09:59 PM

...and I doubt the ability of the national guard to fire on civvies...

*cough* BERKELEY!! *cough cough*

razark

02-10-12, 10:05 PM

Stealhead

02-11-12, 12:05 AM

Little known fact: "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was the first film advertised as "based on a true story". They need to make another one called "Mr.Moneybags hires lobby and gets what he wants from Washington without having to actually go to Washington".

CaptainHaplo

02-11-12, 01:00 AM

*cough* BERKELEY!! *cough cough*

What? I assume your referring to Kent State, not Berkeley?

If you were - you can hardly call people who burn cars, buildings, throw rocks and tear gas cannisters at soldiers, etc. - "civilians". While I would say that the shootings there were not necessarily "justified", history shows that the Guard at the scene were in fact assaulted by your so called "civilians". Legal review also determined that the Guard was involved in a legal dispursement - which was refused by many.

So, arsonists and other criminals who refuse to abide by the law we have in this land, who then assault armed soldiers - are somehow innocent civilians?

Well, if thats your view, then its easy to guess your view on palestinian terrorists too..... Guess they are all just "innocent civvies" as well....

Kent State was a tragedy - but to absolve one side of guilt and blame only the other, is a refusal of historical fact and an intentional disregard for the reality of personal responsibiltiy.

Sailor Steve

02-11-12, 01:19 AM

Two of the Kent State dead were part of the protest. The other two were walking from one class to another. Nine other students were wounded. One Guardsman was injured, about 10 minutes before the shooting began.

Yes, some of the protestors were out of line. That doesn't change the fact that the National Guard was completely out of line and the shooting unwarranted.

Tribesman

02-11-12, 03:25 AM

If you were - you can hardly call people who burn cars, buildings, throw rocks and tear gas cannisters at soldiers, etc. - "civilians".
wow:doh:
I didn't think anything could top the OP:down:

So, arsonists and other criminals who refuse to abide by the law we have in this land, who then assault armed soldiers - are somehow innocent civilians?

Ah I get it now, its just building a nice scarecrow.

Well, if thats your view, then its easy to guess your view on palestinian terrorists too.....
Even Baldric can outwit that one in a tactical situation:rotfl2:

AVGWarhawk

02-11-12, 07:44 AM

I have seen FEMA mentioned twice in this thread. What grand conspiracy concerning FEMA is being alluded too? :hmmm:

Tribesman

02-11-12, 09:34 AM

What grand conspiracy concerning FEMA is being alluded too?
Go to the home page of the opening piece, it is very good for a laugh, just click on any random piece.
Or for FEMA conspiracies in particular just look for Jones and his pieces on the secret FEMA concentration camps which Obama is going to put the US population into, or Obamas secret personal FEMA army of errrrrr....Nazi dentists which are going to round up the population as part of his new world order corporate communist jewish nazi capitalist european african arab atheist federal muslim illuminati scheme:yeah:

Or if you want to take it more seriously just take the "constitutional expert" in the article and read his work on the constitution, see how many lines you can get through before you are absolutely sure without a shadow of a doubt that he is clueless.

Whichever approach you take one thing is certain......Bubbles really delivered on this one:rotfl2:

krashkart

02-11-12, 10:56 AM

What? I assume your referring to Kent State, not Berkeley?

Yes, I meant Kent State. :oops:

The point that I was trying to make, Hap, is that the Guard has been known in the past to fire on civilians. I didn't try to explain why they did it, nor cast blame at one side or the other. :yep:

Platapus

02-11-12, 12:18 PM

You can run on any platform you like, but once you get to DC, the party whip greets you and says "Ok, the party will support you on this, this and this, but when you said that - forget it. Not happening. We'll help you out so long as you help us out and vote with the rest of the caucus or you'll be a one termer. Got it? Good. Now let's go have drinks with the lobbyists."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how it is. What do you think would happen to a politician who would would tell the party leadership "forget the party, I am going to do what I feel is best"?

1. They won't be on any important committees
2. Their bills will die in committee
3. They won't get any money or support from the party either during their term or for their reelection.

End result, a complete waste of everything.

The priorities of a politician are

1. Get elected/reelected
2. Get others of their party elected/reelected
3. Garner support for their party and their party's agenda/platform
5. Do something good for the country as long as it does not conflict with 1-4

I wonder what priority 4 is? That's where you separate good and bad politicians. But that is way down the list.

It is one of the weaknesses of our democratic representative form of government.

Bubblehead1980

02-12-12, 04:33 PM

Bubblehead1980

02-12-12, 05:04 PM

I must admit I am a little baffled by the claim that "academia is dominated by lefties". The leanings of the facility is going to depend largely on the school.Bubblehead comes from FL so I assume that he either went to Florida State or the University Of Florida.I cant say so much about FSU but I myself attended classes at UF to finish my BA and I have several friends that attended UF for their entire post secondary education.Some of my friends are very conservative and they never once complained about the facility being a bunch of "lefties" and in my experiences the left right leaning where 50/50.

If Bubblehead dislikes lefties so much he should have done a little research into the faculty of the school/s that he attended/attends.I mean if you go to UC Berkeley and you hate lefties you are the one that looks foolish. Bubblehead should have looked at this site before enrolling http://www.yaf.org/topconservativecolleges.aspx or perhaps Bubblehead does not understand what liberal arts means.:hmmm:

I think either Bubblehead is overly caught up in his own leanings that he automatically sees anyone that is not as conservative as he considers correct he just labels them a leftist.Personally I think that it is good for a college or university to have a mixture in its faculty.In my experience most professors where open to discussion not opposed to it.

I dont know about others but I do not choose my friends based on their ideologies as Bubblehead does what matters to me is are they are good person are they a good friend to me not who they vote for or what their political leanings are.

Haha, I would never attend those colleges, they are mostly christian run indoctrination centers that are just as ignorant as the left wingers. The problem with the left leaning professors is they teach their ideology and not what they are supposed to teach. Example, a pre law professor taught the "living constitution" like it was standard when it is not.This Professor became quite irritated when I challenged him, some agreed with me, others with the professor ,while many just droned on like sheep and did not engage in the discussion.Fair in his grading? Yes, I was awarded an A in his course.Fair in his teaching? NO That is where it gets dangerous, most professors know the majority of undergraduate students have no firm views as of yet and many attempt to indoctrinate them.That is why many undergrads are so insanely liberal, most grow out of it from what I understand, but the seeds are definitely planted in undergrad.

Professors at my Law School are not all left wing hacks but seems most of them I have this term are, so I am a bit more irritated than normal.I have to tell you, it really is irritating when you watch someone abuse their position to spread a harmful ideology instead of teaching.Keeping things fair, right wing professors(not that many really) do the same in many cases but academia is currently dominated by liberals.Bottom line, one may have their ignorant left/socialist/commie views etc and are the scum of the earth, because their beliefs put the collective over individual liberty, but don't abuse the position.

Tribesman

02-12-12, 05:43 PM

While the FEMA thing is most likely nutjob speculation
Most likely???????:rotfl2:

I am an atheist but believe in the constitution which obviously obama does not
Is that why you posted a piece by an "expert" who clearly shows he is clueless:doh:
maybe he mixed up the finer details of hunting ghosts and US history and got confused:hmmm:

the list of his impeachable offenses was spot on
By "spot on" do you mean mostly drivel or do you live in an alternate universe?

Tribes you ignorant little man
Well after that link ......:har::har::har::har:
Keep showing your intellect boy, your deliveries are much appreciated:up:

AVGWarhawk

02-12-12, 05:57 PM

Go to the home page of the opening piece, it is very good for a laugh, just click on any random piece.
Or for FEMA conspiracies in particular just look for Jones and his pieces on the secret FEMA concentration camps which Obama is going to put the US population into, or Obamas secret personal FEMA army of errrrrr....Nazi dentists which are going to round up the population as part of his new world order corporate communist jewish nazi capitalist european african arab atheist federal muslim illuminati scheme:yeah:

Or if you want to take it more seriously just take the "constitutional expert" in the article and read his work on the constitution, see how many lines you can get through before you are absolutely sure without a shadow of a doubt that he is clueless.

Whichever approach you take one thing is certain......Bubbles really delivered on this one:rotfl2:

I read up on this nut job about a year or so ago. He is without a doubt a nut job. FEMA has very little time for crack headed ideas like this person has drafted. Do you really want to know what FEMA does during times like this were there is very little needed for relief? The construct "what if" scenarios. We exercise all year for the most outlandish problems arising we can find. There is no time or grand conspiracy for FEMA concentration camps. That is just laughable.

My most favorite exercise concerned the islands of Hawaii. The scenario is some weather event has made the water on the adjacent island to the main island undrinkable. We were tasked with finding costs to purchase from the mainland and fly via Antonov to Hawaii piping that would be connected end to end from the island with good water to the island with bad water.

In the meantime...we have the military with equipment that can just about make drinkable water from anything!!! Fly a few out to the island and start making good water. :doh:

And this guy thinks FEMA/Obama are running concentration camps. That's rich! :har:

Tribesman

02-12-12, 06:21 PM

My most favorite exercise concerned the islands of Hawaii.
Oh god...I hope the people from that website don't read that, you know what it will spark off....secret FEMA plans to turn hawaii into an offshore prison and take away its statehood so US citizens can be tricked into going there and then ending up in the legal limbo of Obamas new Oahu Gitmo. Plus them sneaky obama new world orderer people will be choosing Hawaii to be sure they can keep secret the fake birth cert which they have kept hidden from examination by concerned true patriots:salute:

...we have the military with equipment that can just about make drinkable water from anything!!!
Obama orders the extension of the secret military program to put mind controlling communist drugs in fake water

Hottentot

02-13-12, 01:23 AM

CaptainHaplo

02-13-12, 01:43 AM

OK, this got me curious. Let's suppose for a while that the academic world has over population of people leaning left (which I don't agree with based on my own studies, but can't say how it is on the other side of the ocean.)

Why is it then that the professors, people with high education, long career and obvious accomplishments since they have been appointed professors from all the doctors out there on their fields, tend to be leaning left?

Academia is insulated. Communism is a great system - on paper. But its a failure in the real world. Academia does not exist in the real world. Professors are like design engineers - it "works" on their computer, in their lab, etc. The "theory" of liberalism is great - but impossible to impliment "in the field" - because the theory discounts basic human nature. Its a variable that simply cannot be accounted for, because it cannot be consistently anticipated correctly.

In the US, especially in the college system, you have instructors that have never gone out and DONE what they teach. They have "book" smarts, but in a real world environment - even in their own field, they cannot succeed. Take a computer programming instructor - give him spaghetti code that has a couple of errors - and he flounders trying to find them. Why? Because its not "what its supposed to be" - its not nicely commented, documented, etc. So he isn't efficient in solving the issue.

Due to the way Academia works - many teachers get tenure. This is their goal - once they get it, it doesn't matter how good or bad they are in the classroom - they basically have "a job for life". The biggest problem is that tenure is often decided by the relevant department - meaning its less about success in teaching, and more about interdepartmental politics.

So you have a system that does nothing to help the "teacher" really understand the subject, and further insulates him or her from ever having to deal with the "fieldwork" that would give them perspective as to what the real world is like. When all you ever see, touch, hear, feel is the "theory" - you can't grasp how or why it doesn't work. So instead of getting that understanding, these professors write articles, garner the praise of others with the same perspective, and thus reinforce their viewpoints (and each others) from inside their own little bubble. When your experience and circle of influence points in one direction, you stick with it - and as time goes on it becomes harder and harder to see anything outside that perspective. Especially when there is no requirement to "go outside the box" and experience something that would grant a different perspective.

Find the professors with real life application experience - and you find the ones that do not follow the "standard" leftist viewpoint. Granted, that is a generality, but one that is fairly accurate.

Tribesman

02-13-12, 03:45 AM

Why is it then that the professors, people with high education, long career and obvious accomplishments since they have been appointed professors from all the doctors out there on their fields, tend to be leaning left?
Going by this topic maybe its intelligence, people on the "right" have this thing about crazy conspiracies, a habit of calling absolute drivel "spot on" and calling someone who is clearly clueless an "expert".

Or look at it this way......
People complain, some people complain loudly, if the people making the most noise happen to be on the far fringe(as is usually the case) then what they are calling "left" is probably "right" and "far left" is probably near the "center".
Its just the same as with the media, schools are a vast global conspiracy just like the news is, and its all against them and their viewpoint.

Talking of the left wing global media, did anyone notice that the opening "expert" who is an "academic" seems to be parroting his lines straight from News Internationals chalkboard of conspiracy?:rotfl2:

02-13-12, 05:01 AM

Great post mr haplo!
That is exactly the problem.
Academia races much "ahead" of reality by theorizing.
Living on Olimpus can make one lose sense of reality.

Tribesman

02-13-12, 06:55 AM

Academia races much "ahead" of reality by theorizing.

Maybe academia saves wasting a lot of its time on "conservative" notions by looking at the "ideas" and remembering what happened all the previous times that particular "reality" was tried.

Living on Olimpus can make one lose sense of reality.
Living on Olympus would give a far better sense of reality and a far better view of the issues than living with bunkervision does.:yeah:
After all as a measure you are a prime example, all this global cabals , intellectual elite in education and world wide meadia conspiracies with capitalists and communists woking together to keep the good people down....it sounds just like something you should be able to discern clearly from a mile away, if you wasn't stuck looking through a narrow slit.

Skybird

02-13-12, 07:17 AM

Just flew over a German headline that Obama THIS YEAR wants to add another 1.3 trillion to the debts of the record he already is responsible for, this time spending the money on traffic and infrastructure.

True? If so, then: Wowh. Just Wowh.

02-13-12, 07:44 AM

Hey mickey...looking for a boxing round?
First part was a legit response in second you get too much ....irish ?

misha1967

02-13-12, 07:45 AM

Maybe academia saves wasting a lot of its time on "conservative" notions by looking at the "ideas" and remembering what happened all the previous times that particular "reality" was tried.

If that were what they were doing, to be sure. But that sort of begs the question as to why they still babble about socialism when it, throughout all of human history, every time it has been tried under no matter what name, has failed miserably.

Every. Single. Time.

You would think that after a few hundred failed attempts true "intellectuals" would finally give up on it.

Repeating the same action time after time expecting a different result and all that... :DL

AVGWarhawk

02-13-12, 07:46 AM

Last time I checked the stimulus packages were to encompass infrastructure and the shovel ready projects. I guess we are to just forget about that aspect. Typical. Earmark and raid it for something else. Thus goes the steady on course Washington that has taken the same course for decades.

Tribesman

02-13-12, 08:30 AM

If that were what they were doing, to be sure. But that sort of begs the question as to why they still babble about socialism when it, throughout all of human history, every time it has been tried under no matter what name, has failed miserably.

Who still babbles about socialism?
Apart from the fringe who think everything they don't like or don't get is socialism.
Hey, who babbles...its bubbles:woot:
Repeating the same action time after time expecting a different result and all that...
That is why most people who think would advocate a mixed system not the same lame ones again and again, the problem of course being finding the right mix that would work

Hey mickey...looking for a boxing round?

Who is mickey?
You are really fond of the canvas ain't ya....on the few occasions when you ain't already just running round the ring in a blind panic:rotfl2:

First part was a legit response in second you get too much ....irish ?
Did it hit too hard?
What does irish mean?
MH are you out to prove that you share another despicable trait with those 30's fools?

Last time I checked the stimulus packages were to encompass infrastructure and the shovel ready projects.
The problem there AVG is that infrastructure can cover most projects one way or another and "shovel ready" is a very flexible term, however only $476 billion is allocated for that slice not the $1.3 trillion sky mentions
Look on the bright side on the bigger number, its a running deficit reduction of $100 billion with a projection of a surplus next budget(who knows, it may even happen:har:)

misha1967

02-13-12, 09:38 AM

Who still babbles about socialism?
Apart from the fringe who think everything they don't like or don't get is socialism.
Hey, who babbles...its bubbles:woot:

That is why most people who think would advocate a mixed system not the same lame ones again and again, the problem of course being finding the right mix that would work

Not sure what your point is, unless you're trying to tell me that relabeling it once again is going to make it fundamentally different from all of its previous failed incarnations. You can call it "social democratism", "progressivism", "liberalism", "national socialism", whatever you want, even though it's going to be quite a challenge to come up with one that hasn't already been tried at least once, it's still not going to be any different from the rest.

Which, at last count, have caused the deaths of at least 150 million people but, hey, we just haven't found the right "mixture" yet.

It's always "but that's not really socialism" with the likes of you. It's always something else. Something impure, some perversion of your inevitably wonderful ideals. None of the failures count because they weren't caused by "real" socialism, whatever that might be. Other than some dream society in which nobody has to work and everybody pays their way by plucking off money from a tree in their back yard.

In the Soviet Union, the party apparatchiks always went on and on about how everybody would reach "true socialism" any day now. They became the party of "Utopia of Next Tuesday" as a result. Always just out of reach, only one more adjustment and it would be finally here.

But who am I to try to destroy your faith in Santa Claus, your unshakable belief that just one more five year plan, just one more tiny adjustment to the mixture will finally make lead turn into gold?

Just don't insist that the rest of us have to suffer while you wait for Utopia of Next Tuesday to arrive.

I've had quite enough of that.

Tchocky

02-13-12, 09:59 AM

Hey hey hey hey hey.

Leave Santa alone.

Tribesman

02-13-12, 11:04 AM

Not sure what your point is,
Who still babbles about socialism?
People like you by the looks of it.

It's always "but that's not really socialism"
If you want to put a label on something then define it, you appear to be another one of those .... who think everything they don't like or don't get is socialism.

Something impure, some perversion of your inevitably wonderful ideals.
You shoot you miss you fail:rotfl2:

But who am I to try to destroy your faith in Santa Claus, your unshakable belief that just one more five year plan, just one more tiny adjustment to the mixture will finally make lead turn into gold?

Well obviously you are completely the wrong person:88)
What is this unshakable belief you rant about and what do you think it is faith in?
This topic was funny enough as it was, but you have now pushed up the hilarity factor by a huge measure, well done:woot:

I've had quite enough of that.
Have you got the faintest idea what you are going on about?

Still you were quite right when you wrote ....Not sure what your point is...but you need to add that you don't seem to know what your own point is.

antikristuseke

02-13-12, 11:18 AM

What's with all the straw here men?

Tribesman

02-13-12, 11:21 AM

It sure don't look like Kansas

AVGWarhawk

02-13-12, 12:23 PM

Tribesman:
The problem there AVG is that infrastructure can cover most projects one way or another and "shovel ready" is a very flexible term, however only $476 billion is allocated for that slice not the $1.3 trillion sky mentions
Look on the bright side on the bigger number, its a running deficit reduction of $100 billion with a projection of a surplus next budget(who knows, it may even happen)

I'm all for infrastructure restoration/renewal truth be told. But you are correct, "shovel ready and infrastructure are broad terms with broader definitions. The sad reality is the money allocated will not be used for infrastructure. If you are familiar with the Social Security funds you are also familiar these funds go to anything but Social Security. This activity happens at the local level as well. The Gov of Maryland wants to raise gas tax .15 cents/gallon over three years for the road repair/renewal fund. Well wait a minute. There is a fund already that has plenty of funds for roads. Where did the money go? Ummmm.....raided once again.....:88) Funds are constantly raided, moved, and absconded all the time. :shifty:

Bubblehead1980

02-13-12, 03:59 PM

OK, this got me curious. Let's suppose for a while that the academic world has over population of people leaning left (which I don't agree with based on my own studies, but can't say how it is on the other side of the ocean.)

Why is it then that the professors, people with high education, long career and obvious accomplishments since they have been appointed professors from all the doctors out there on their fields, tend to be leaning left?

Easy, most professors are "theory people", they have little to no real world experience with the things they advocate or teach, especially those teaching things such as political science, economics etc. Many Profs tend to get caught in their own little bubble and not understand how things work.I mean it is a nice gig once you have tenure, and even a professor at a community college makes decent money with some perks, so imagine at a major university. People like Barack Obama are a perfect example, Obama has never worked in the real economy, he went from law school to some firm for a little while, taught constitutional law(which is scary, someone like him could teach that course) as far as I can tell his only job after was that of a "community organizer" which is pretty much a joke.Then he entered politics but really did not do much while there, both in IL and the US Senate before managing to finagle his way to the white house.

Since academia is dominated by liberals who spew their nonsense on impressionable students, it kind of becomes a self perpetuating cycle, indoctrinate as many as possible, they become liberally inclined but that is why most people become more conservative, especially economically, as they age because they come to understand that left wing economic theory is just crap and does not work in the real world.I laugh at many of my friends from undergrad who were far left but have moved away since we are what two years out of undergrad and they are working(if can actually find a job in this economy) and are finding out how things work, about taxes etc.Favorite case of this is a friend is a bit older than me, he went to Dental School and is now an Orthodontist, he was quickly turned his crazy left wing economic views around seeing his tax rate, it is quite amusing.I would most likely be one of the theory people currently but growing up, I watched my father build a small three man operation into a successful business, put things in perspective for me from a fairly young age.

So in summation, there is the theory world and the real world.Theory world is great, nothing better than an education as it helps you advance yourself in many ways as a human being BUT one must understand the real world.

Stealhead

02-13-12, 04:08 PM

So if "Theory world is great, nothing better than an education as it helps you advance yourself in many ways as a human being BUT one must understand the real world." Would it not be a good thing that academia are mostly leftist that way the the few that better understand the real world will in the end be a benefit to the few that are not fooled by the nonsense?

How does one understand the real world?Am I in the real world or a theory world?How dose one know?

mookiemookie

02-13-12, 04:14 PM

I find it absolutely hilarious that the best argument the righties can come up with is that "the lefties only have theories that don't work in real life practice!" and yet they cling to the discredited ideology of trickle down economics and tax cuts for the rich as being good for the economy.

"Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?

Face it. Both parties have a very poor understanding of economics.

02-13-12, 04:19 PM

So if "Theory world is great, nothing better than an education as it helps you advance yourself in many ways as a human being BUT one must understand the real world." Would it not be a good thing that academia are mostly leftist that way the the few that better understand the real world will in the end be a benefit to the few that are not fooled by the nonsense?

As far as hardcore capitalism i should say it works that way.:haha:

Takeda Shingen

02-13-12, 04:23 PM

I have quite a bit of 'real world' experience in my field. So do almost all of my colleagues.

EDIT: Yes, I misspelled field. And I have a doctorate. Go me.

Stealhead

02-13-12, 04:24 PM

"Face it. Both parties have a very poor understanding of economics."

Or the real world for that matter.

"I have quite a bit of 'real world' experience in my field. So do almost all of my colleagues."

In leftist pinko-commie leftist leanings and of implanting them into the minds of young impressionable students according to Bubblehead a person who "understands how the real world works" Bubblehead should enlighten us all with this knowledge that he has of the real world.I am rather curious because I am pretty certain that I have been in the "real world" for some time yet I do not agree with most anything that he has said.He most likely thinks that I am a pinko-commie and I do admit that I did once while in Italy get invited to eat with a group of pinko-commie farmers they wanted to speak with someone in the American military and see what my world was like compared to their theory world they had just theoretically gathered up their harvest they made a good choice because I am not a Democrat nor am I leftist of course I am not right wing either.The theoretical food was rather delicious and everyone seemed theoretically very happy.

Tribesman

02-13-12, 05:20 PM

Favorite case of this is a friend is a bit older than me, he went to Dental School
Its Obamas secret army of nazi dentists:har:

Easy, most professors are "theory people", they have little to no real world experience with the things they advocate or teach
i wonder as bubbles is an expert on law what the careers of the average faculty member teaching at law school would cover.
Wouild they perhaps be people who worked in law before they became teachers, would they perhaps be people who still work in law even though they are teachers.
Maybe bubbles in his wisdom can do a brief resume of his typical know nothing indoctrinatinfg professors which he would have trouble convincing that the piece of crap he opened with is "spot on".

CCIP

02-13-12, 05:26 PM

Stealhead

02-13-12, 05:31 PM

I like how he calls his dentist friend his favorite case.You see Bubblehead is going to make a career of re-educating pinko-left wing commies and showing them how the real world works
making them functional members of society when he is done with you you will no longer have your pink underwear for you will no lodger be "pink right down to your underwear" as Richard Nixon said of his opponent during his 1950 senate run.Bubblehead must really like George Wallace he was always on about pseudo-pinko-intellectuals.

I like how he thinks every successful businessman must be right wing conservative.

Tribesman

02-13-12, 05:37 PM

I like how he calls his dentist friend his favorite case.
Well he wouldn't have the face to refer to his legal buddies at work again would he...or maybe he would try that line of bull again:rotfl2:

Tchocky

02-13-12, 05:42 PM

Hey hey hey hey hey hey.

Leave Nixon out of this.

http://worstprofessorever.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/futuramanixon.jpg

02-13-12, 05:47 PM

I also love that old joke about "people becoming conservative as the age/gain real-life experience." Got any numbers to back that up? Always seems to come down to somebody's mythical dentist friend who, like those mythical commie professors, is proof to everything.

I should say it is about refining some views by experience.
Young people are more prone to fall into nice idealistic social justice ideologies .
Later in life when seeing a lot abuse of the system one refines the views a bit.
Same thing for hardcore capitalism by the way.

Stealhead

02-13-12, 05:51 PM

Nixon fits right in he won a campaign largely on labeling his opponent a pinko-commie he even passed out flyers that where printed on pink paper.The problem is that the term pinko was coined back in the 20's to describe one with leftist leanings a "red" was the card holding communist and the actual doctrine spreader.The very right wing in the US use pinko in an attempt to link anyone not in agreement and having liberal leaning as some how being a communist even though very few left leaning people are anywhere near that level.

@MH I would say that more people tend to either become more moderate over time or stay about the same.I think many people imitate the leanings of their parents as well often without really thinking about it.

CaptainHaplo

02-13-12, 06:59 PM

I should say it is about refining some views by experience.
Young people are more prone to fall into nice idealistic social justice ideologies .
Later in life when seeing a lot abuse of the system one refines the views a bit.
Same thing for hardcore capitalism by the way.

I disagree MH. Experience is what shapes a large portion of a person's perspective. Take capitalism - if you start a business, work hard and thrive, you see capitalism as a successful system. If your neighbor does the same thing, but fails, he has an entirely different view of the system. Depending on the investment (monetary, time and emotional) that he has put into a failed enterprise, his view of the system you used to succeed could be extremely jaded.

The problem here is that the "left" today takes a noble desire - the idea that your friend shouldn't fail - and moves it to an extreme - he should be supported - using the success you earned in your own business. What they fail to see is that if you take out the risk - you also take out the reward. You provide no incentive for the work necessary - if your guaranteed an outcome - regardless of how hard you work or how much you slack off, why would you work hard? This applies to all sorts of economic policies...

Tax the wealthy? Really? Up the capital gainst tax? Capital gains are already double taxed - you are taxed when you earn the money you invest - and then your taxed on it again when you make money. Take more taxes, you remove any reason to invest.....

Trickle down economics is not a perfect system. However, if the left actually cared about facts - it would find the following:

In Jan 1980, we started a recession. By the end of 1983 unemployment was at 9.6%. However, the fiscal policies of ERTA (the "Reagan tax cuts") began to show results - while the labor pool grew by more than 6 Million people - unemployment dropped over 2% in 1 year. *It takes time for investments to create jobs - factory build time, etc...* Compare that with a job pool that has SHRUNK in the last 2 years....

I digress. To a person who leans left, they can't see the fact that incentivizing investment from the private sector is what creates jobs. Instead - they see it as the government's role to "provide" - without realizing that government is - by its very nature - inefficient. Take $5 from a person, send it through government and you get a return significantly LESS than $5 worth. Government adds MASSIVE overhead. Business - for all its "evils" - thrives on profit - so it has an incentive to be as lean as possible. This is good in some ways - bad in others. Too lean means employees can suffer, etc. The thing is, to a true liberal (and not those who just lean), government is who owns the money in the first place - so its not "taking" from one person - its not really theirs to start with. Its simply a question of who "owns" what.

Now - lets tie this together. You are successful, so you love a capitalist system. Your friend failed - perhaps through no fault of his own - so when someone comes to you and says "we have to change the system" - you say "heck no - I love this". What do you think your friend says? Especially when the "change" means he won't have to worry about failure, he will get "taken care of" - he will be "equal" to you in outcome? Its pretty clear his response will likely be different than yours.

This is how the true far left works - it takes advantage of human nature. It works on "fairness" - or so it claims - but it really uses promised entitlements without hard work to insure an outcome - and make no mistake - humans are by nature "lazy". If we were not - it wouldn't be called "work", now would it?

*Also - remember the discussion on professors? This is another reason academia is leftist - those that go out into the real world and succeed USUALLY (with a few exceptions) don't decide to teach - they instead build upon their successes in the world. Academia offers a place for those who have not succeeded (again - there are exceptions) to find a place where they can be successful and in a position of authority - without having to actually have been able to point to any "real world" success. Thus - a system in which a "fair" outcome is guaranteed - is often very appealing to those who cannot face the prospect of "real world failure".

Takeda Shingen

02-13-12, 07:09 PM

In Jan 1980, we started a recession. By the end of 1983 unemployment was at 9.6%. However, the fiscal policies of ERTA (the "Reagan tax cuts") began to show results - while the labor pool grew by more than 6 Million people - unemployment dropped over 2% in 1 year. *It takes time for investments to create jobs - factory build time, etc...* Compare that with a job pool that has SHRUNK in the last 2 years.

I will call foul on this. The Reagan 'tax cuts' also featured rollbacks and tax increases in both 1981 and 1982. Additionally Reagan compensated throughout his administration by increasing the payroll tax. As such, the Reagan tax cuts, and their effect on the economy is misleading. Reagan benefited by being in office during a natural cyclical economic upswing. Those supposed tax cuts and their effects are largely ahistorical and used as propoganda by so-called 'Reagan Conservatives' to justify thier image of big government.

I like you Haplo, but I think you are wrong here.

Stealhead

02-13-12, 07:22 PM

"*Also - remember the discussion on professors? This is another reason academia is leftist - those that go out into the real world and succeed USUALLY (with a few exceptions) don't decide to teach - they instead build upon their successes in the world. Academia offers a place for those who have not succeeded (again - there are exceptions) to find a place where they can be successful and in a position of authority - without having to actually have been able to point to any "real world" success. Thus - a system in which a "fair" outcome is guaranteed - is often very appealing to those who cannot face the prospect of "real world failure".

I do not agree with this opinion there are many professors that had very successful careers in the "real world" and decided that they wanted to educate others in their fields so that others might have chance at success.For example I have some neighbors that where both teachers and later administrators in the school system when they retired they both took jobs as professors educating others how to become educators.The husband was a dog handler for the Army in Vietnam and later went to school using his GI Bill I would say that makes him very experienced in both life and in the field that he teaches in.Most school shave a mixture of backgrounds on not every single professor has no experience in their field of instruction to in fact they all must have some experience.

I would argue that there are no where near as many openings for a person seeking to become a professor in their given field for most any job.The idea that professors are all mostly left wingers is a scary story that hard core right wingers wish to promote.The realty is that the mixture is much more varied and largely depends on the field being taught and at many schools there where be professors of vary view on politics and theory.

I also diagree that humans are by nature lazy wed not have come this far if we where that is just your own personal negative view.

AVGWarhawk

02-13-12, 07:28 PM

CaptainHaplo

02-13-12, 08:11 PM

I will call foul on this. The Reagan 'tax cuts' also featured rollbacks and tax increases in both 1981 and 1982. Additionally Reagan compensated throughout his administration by increasing the payroll tax. As such, the Reagan tax cuts, and their effect on the economy is misleading. Reagan benefited by being in office during a natural cyclical economic upswing. Those supposed tax cuts and their effects are largely ahistorical and used as propoganda by so-called 'Reagan Conservatives' to justify thier image of big government.

I like you Haplo, but I think you are wrong here.

I like you too, Takeda. Its all good.

Now, do you mean TEFRA? Or the 82 and 84 "base broadening" measures that reduced tax shelters and "leveled" the playing field? I don't subscribe to the "Reagan never raised taxes" stuff, but the reality is that its not just how much taxes are collected......

The important part of taxation is WHERE taxes come from. A broad based, low tax increase doesn't "hurt" that much - and allowed for a Capital Gains cut of massive size. That is what spurred the economic growth in the middle of the 80's. Investment creates economic growth.

To say that Reagan profitted from a "natural cyclical economic upswing" ignores one important reality.... The country had been in "stagflation" for over a decade - economic cycles take 3-5 years on average to transition. Such a transition had not happened - because the policies in place kept it from doing so. As soon as governemental policies allowed business conditions to be changed, investment started and the cycle began to move again. A few years later, the effects of that change were seen.

You bring up a point about "Big Government". Government expenditures vs GDP actually INCREASED under Reagan - in essence he "grew the government". Something you won't hear many conservatives "admit". But its simple fact. What has to be taken into account however is where that growth was - in the "guns vs butter" battle, Reagan went with guns. Defense spending increased dramatically.

This brings up one point I strongly disagree with compared to many on the "right". Defense spending is out of control. There IS a military industry complex - and it wants every dime it can get. While I disagree drastically with Ron Paul on HOW to keep this nation safe, we could meet our security goals and protect our global interests without the massive military spending we have today.

One unfortunate side effect of Ronald Reagan was the right's utter unwillingness to revise military spending. Peace through strength can be insured without bankrupting the country. However, military spending is classified as "discretionary" - and the biggest problem with governmental spending is "mandatory" (entitlement and debt service) spending - not discretionary.

I would - were I able - be willing to cut military spending in exchange for reform of entitlements. How is it that those in Washington - on both sides, are not willing to do the same?

AVGWarhawk

02-13-12, 08:22 PM

reform of entitlements

This would be huge. Problem is the entitlements pool is getting deeper by the minute.

CaptainHaplo

02-13-12, 08:57 PM

This would be huge. Problem is the entitlements pool is getting deeper by the minute.

Unfortunately, your right. If we simply means tested Medicare, required medicaid adult recipient (or sponsors when the recipient is a child) to pass drug desting - did the same for welfare recipients - as a condition of eligibility, got rid of "corporate welfare" entirely (if capitalism really works - why do industries need massive subsidies?) and reduced military spending - specifically the R&D boondoggles - we could end up not just reducing "the deficit" - which is lip service and is nothing more than reducing overspending - whereas true "deficit reduction" means paying toward the debt itself - we could solve much of the spending issues this nation has. Combine that with real tax reform that doesn't push business into going oversees, and we could have our economy - and future - roaring and bright like a bonfire again. On top of it all - gasp - enforce the laws we have on the books regarding businesses hring illegals, take welfare away from illegals - and we wouldnt have to be talking about the "immigration" problem - it would solve itself for the most part.

02-13-12, 09:23 PM

I disagree MH. Experience is what shapes a large portion of a person's perspective. Take capitalism - if you start a business, work hard and thrive, you see capitalism as a successful system. If your neighbor does the same thing, but fails, he has an entirely different view of the system. Depending on the investment (monetary, time and emotional) that he has put into a failed enterprise, his view of the system you used to succeed could be extremely jaded.

I'm not business owner-just a working guy.
The general view of functioning state here is more of a EU model with exceptions.
Not a nanny state but with some government responsibilities toward its people.
Public nationalized health care,education and limited security in case of unemployment is the basis.

There also some relics from 60s 70s socialism experiment.
Like Union protected minimal efficiency fat salaries nationalised Electric Company that need to be reformed.
A good remainder on how thing should not be run and how to make dent in a pocket:D
Israel moved from hardcore socialism to capitalism and now pushing back a bit.
American model is a bit too cruel for us.

CCIP

02-13-12, 09:47 PM

This would be huge. Problem is the entitlements pool is getting deeper by the minute.

Obviously I'm being a little sarcastic there!

But the fact that there are plenty of old socialists (in fact their organizations are flooded with old farts and have trouble attracting youth!) and the fact that the popular support and basis for socialist governments is NOT airy-fairy intellectuals but organized industrial labour - about as far as you can get from people of "no real world experience" - does punch some holes into this.

I call it a joke because calling it something else would just be plain offensive, as is the assertion that apparently there's only one legitimate way of having a 'real' or 'mature' life experience. That assertion in itself is a pretty good indicator of intellectual immaturity and lack of social/political awareness - what some here have now taken to calling the Bubblehead syndrome.

mookiemookie

02-13-12, 11:11 PM

incentivizing investment from the private sector is what creates jobs.

Demand creates jobs. Taxes on entrepreneurs can be lowered to zero and they can all open factories but if there's no one to buy the output, it does nothing. Until the right realizes this, their economics are just as head-shakingly wrong as the left's.

The top 1% may buy a 50 yachts and Maybachs a year, but it's the much larger middle class that buys 100,000 Chevys and 36" TVs - which one creates more jobs? The 50 products or the 100,000?

Demand creates jobs. Not handouts to the rich.

economic cycles take 3-5 years on average to transition.

Unless Obama's in office, then it's like "OMG things aren't better RIGHT NOW!"

Bubblehead1980

02-14-12, 12:34 AM

I also love that old joke about "people becoming conservative as the age/gain real-life experience." Got any numbers to back that up? Always seems to come down to somebody's mythical dentist friend who, like those mythical commie professors, is proof to everything.

Not a joke, I am watching it happen among my group of friends, sure some will take longer than others and many will possibly never see the light but it does happen.I have heard many times over my life that this happens in addition to reading in various places.The old saying "If you are not a liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart.If you are not a conservative when you are older, you don't have a brain"

Tribesman

02-14-12, 01:22 AM

I do not agree with this opinion there are many professors that had very successful careers in the "real world" and decided that they wanted to educate others in their fields so that others might have chance at success.
Which is why it would be interesting for young bubbles to give a brief resume of his "know nothing" faculty members who ain't done anything in the real world. After all he is apparently doing law and law school does have a habit of packing itself with proffesors who are pretty much top of their game and then advertising how its teachers have such wide and distinuished experience in a proffesional capacity.

Not a joke, I am watching it happen among my group of friends
:har::har::har::har::har::har:

in addition to reading in various places
Poor bubbles, don't you realise you opened with an example of the places which you read:doh:
don't you get it yet? you really delivered on this one:rotfl2:

Betonov

02-14-12, 02:47 AM

I also love that old joke about "people becoming conservative as the age/gain real-life experience."

It's part true. I was a commie in high school. Viva la revolucion Che Guevara top fan Tito forever kind a brat. Then college came and I started to shift towards the center and increasingly started to hate communism.

But center is where I stopped. I hate the left, I call them comunists and I hate the right, I call them fascists. And this party ideologies are tearing my country apart

Stealhead

02-14-12, 03:26 AM

It all depends on the person just because your opinion changed does not mean that it is so for everyone.Some people will feel stronger and stronger in their leanings other will drift more to the middle a very small number will make the drastic change usually the really nutty ones.Did you know that Hitler very nearly considered going to some communist party meetings his police assignment changed all of that.

In my youth my mother was more or less a moderate republican and my father was a generally moderate democrat their voting varied a bit though they never stuck to party lines in every election.As a teenager I always had a dislike for hard core left and right ideas and that never really changed much so I always felt very moderate and to some degree libertarian I still feel this way for the most part and I am registered as an independent I have always disliked how the Republicans and Democrats for the most part just sit there and bicker with each other both sides always are trying to convince you that the other is the worst possible thing for the country.What I most dislike about both is how they all to some degree want to tell everyone how to live get lost with that nonsense.

misha1967

02-14-12, 03:38 AM

You shoot you miss you fail:rotfl2:

Well obviously you are completely the wrong person:88)
What is this unshakable belief you rant about and what do you think it is faith in?
This topic was funny enough as it was, but you have now pushed up the hilarity factor by a huge measure, well done:woot:

Ever so sorry that I didn't quite catch the transcendent wisdom cleverly disguised in your original post, which was what I replied to. I must have utterly missed the mark since you did not once deign to provide my poor inferior self with something even remotely resembling an actual answer. For that transgression, I do most sincerely and humbly apologize.

My obviously hideously errant impression that you, somehow, thought that the main problem with socialism was that wise men hadn't yet found the right mixture, was based entirely upon my reading of what you said earlier:

That is why most people who think would advocate a mixed system not the same lame ones again and again, the problem of course being finding the right mix that would work

I realize now, of course, that at no point did you suggest that people "who think", as opposed to unenlightened individuals quite unlike your own omniscient self, would "advocate a mixed system" with "the problem of course being finding the right mix that would work."

For some reason, no doubt due to my ignorance, I took your exact words to mean what they actually said, at no point allowing for the possibility that English might not be your first language.

I stand chastised before your obvious superior intellect, humbled as a result of your expert wielding of playground insults and recognize that I have met my superior.

Oh, just one question, should you deign to answer it with something more enlightening that smileys and evasions, which is obviously all that a mere plebeian such as myself deserve: How is that "trying to find the correct mixture for the Utopia of Next Tuesday" working out for you over there in the vibrant economy of Ireland? I haven't had an update in ages.

Do let me know when you hit that perfect "mix" so that we may copy it over here in the colonies.

Thank you ever so much.

Betonov

02-14-12, 04:25 AM

It all depends on the person...

In my youth my mother was more or less a moderate republican and my father was a generally moderate democrat...

A lot has to do with your parents. My parents are ''don't give a damn about politics'' kind a people and there was no influence from them.
One of my friends is a die hard Yugo nostalgic. Bring back socialism and Tito. Not surprised, his parents were active party members and still have a picture of Tito in their house.
Another friend comes from a religius family and is right oriented, despite him not being religius. And we're all in our mid-twenties so we had plenty of time to develop an independent opinion

joegrundman

02-14-12, 04:35 AM

Ever so sorry that I didn't quite catch the transcendent wisdom cleverly disguised in your original post, which was what I replied to. I must have utterly missed the mark since you did not once deign to provide my poor inferior self with something even remotely resembling an actual answer. For that transgression, I do most sincerely and humbly apologize.

My obviously hideously errant impression that you, somehow, thought that the main problem with socialism was that wise men hadn't yet found the right mixture, was based entirely upon my reading of what you said earlier:

I realize now, of course, that at no point did you suggest that people "who think", as opposed to unenlightened individuals quite unlike your own omniscient self, would "advocate a mixed system" with "the problem of course being finding the right mix that would work."

For some reason, no doubt due to my ignorance, I took your exact words to mean what they actually said, at no point allowing for the possibility that English might not be your first language.

I stand chastised before your obvious superior intellect, humbled as a result of your expert wielding of playground insults and recognize that I have met my superior.

Oh, just one question, should you deign to answer it with something more enlightening that smileys and evasions, which is obviously all that a mere plebeian such as myself deserve: How is that "trying to find the correct mixture for the Utopia of Next Tuesday" working out for you over there in the vibrant economy of Ireland? I haven't had an update in ages.

Do let me know when you hit that perfect "mix" so that we may copy it over here in the colonies.

Thank you ever so much.

can you define what it is that you mean by socialism? What forms of government spending are not socialism in your view? For example is government maintenance of public highways a form of socialism in your view? And if so, is it an acceptable form?

Tribesman

02-14-12, 04:42 AM

Ever so sorry that I didn't quite catch the transcendent wisdom cleverly disguised in your original post, which was what I replied to.
No you didn't

For some reason, no doubt due to my ignorance, I took your exact words to mean what they actually said
Obviously it was your ignorance as you didn't take them for what they actually said and instead went tilting at windmills like donkey oaty.

My obviously hideously errant impression that you, somehow, thought that the main problem with socialism was that wise men hadn't yet found the right mixture, was based entirely upon my reading of what you said earlier:

Reading again

Oh, just one question, should you deign to answer it with something more enlightening that smileys and evasions, which is obviously all that a mere plebeian such as myself deserve: How is that "trying to find the correct mixture for the Utopia of Next Tuesday" working out for you over there in the vibrant economy of Ireland? I haven't had an update in ages.

It is working out very well for me, the unintelligent free marketering and deregulation just for the sake of it by copying all the worst aspects of failed thatcherite ideology went exactly the same way as her experiment did(or even worse in some aspects). As I did very well out of that screw up in Britain I was even better prepared for taking advantage of this inevitable screw up here.
Meanwhile the muppets who swallowed all the marketing crap from the politicians and the banks (which sounds like an "idea" you adhere to) are in debt up to their eyeballs with properties that are worth bugger all compared to what they paid.
Slightly worried about any further expansion yet as the market hasn't fully tanked and the upswing will be slow.

Hows the Utopia over there are you in the same boat as the ideologues like yubba?

Do let me know when you hit that perfect "mix" so that we may copy it over here in the colonies.

So history is another failing of your then as well as language and politics:rotfl2:

Keep building those strawmmen:yeah:

Tribesman

02-14-12, 04:58 AM

can you define what it is that you mean by socialism?
I think it was clearly defined earlier...... everything they don't like or don't get is socialism.

Stealhead

02-14-12, 04:00 PM

A lot has to do with your parents. My parents are ''don't give a damn about politics'' kind a people and there was no influence from them.
One of my friends is a die hard Yugo nostalgic. Bring back socialism and Tito. Not surprised, his parents were active party members and still have a picture of Tito in their house.
Another friend comes from a religius family and is right oriented, despite him not being religius. And we're all in our mid-twenties so we had plenty of time to develop an independent opinion

That is usually the case in the US most of the time but not always.Of course in the US in order to get voted in as president one must get the majority of the moderate vote that is the key.If you are the Dem Rep runner during the primaries in most states the registered voters can only vote for their party so during the primaries which does narrow down who each candidate will be will be once that is done you pretty much have all of your firm party voters.

mookiemookie

02-14-12, 05:09 PM

That is usually the case in the US most of the time but not always.Of course in the US in order to get voted in as president one must get the majority of the moderate vote that is the key.If you are the Dem Rep runner during the primaries in most states the registered voters can only vote for their party so during the primaries which does narrow down who each candidate will be will be once that is done you pretty much have all of your firm party voters.

It's a fine line to walk. You need to appeal enough to the moderates to get their vote, but you can't stray too far away from the base that you fail to turn out their vote.

Stealhead

02-14-12, 05:48 PM

Yep I am sure that one of the advisers tells each runner which moderate groups to pander to more than likely the same adviser that says "Roll up those selves when you visit a factory or large general public gathering it makes you look like a hard worker." :shifty: It is funny how chief campaign advisers/strategists that got thier man into office are well known the ones that failed are usually not.

Everyone has heard of James Carville and Karl Rove but how knows who Carters adviser was for his losing bid?That would make a great million dollar question.

CaptainHaplo

02-14-12, 07:30 PM

Demand creates jobs. Taxes on entrepreneurs can be lowered to zero and they can all open factories but if there's no one to buy the output, it does nothing. Until the right realizes this, their economics are just as head-shakingly wrong as the left's.

The top 1% may buy a 50 yachts and Maybachs a year, but it's the much larger middle class that buys 100,000 Chevys and 36" TVs - which one creates more jobs? The 50 products or the 100,000?

Demand creates jobs. Not handouts to the rich.

Unless Obama's in office, then it's like "OMG things aren't better RIGHT NOW!"

2 things here Mookie.

First - your right - demand does create jobs - however - there isn't a question of demand - we are a consumer nation. The problem is people don't have jobs to be able to create demand - so when jobs are created (by investors) - demand also rises.

Now - as for the "OMG" comment - Obama stated he had to turn the economy around or else he would be a 1 term president. His words - and so far he has failed. Now - the thing is that one must look at WHY he has failed - and WHY the transition hasn't started yet. Obama's policies - more government spending (inefficient), increased debt, a desire to tax investors and small business at higher rates - has kept the economy from recovery. Now - the bailouts were NOT just Obama's fault - Bush holds blame there too. The QE's have killed any forward growth - so both sides share blame. However, Obama's policies of more regulation, more taxation, more spending - have failed to provide any impetus for the economy to move. This is - per his own stated standard - what makes him a "failure" on the economy.

Now - before you start talking unemployment numbers, look at the reality - the job pool has shrunk massively, people are dropping of even looking for work - not only because jobs are still hard to come by, but also because BOTH sides are sitting there handing out more and more unemployment checks. Why would people look for a job when they can get paid to sit on their tails at home? A lot of people WON'T. Others have lost everything because they have tried - for years - and can't find anything.

If X equals the "worker pool" and y equals the number of jobs, z is the unemployment rate. x/y=z

When you increase y slightly, but decrease x significantly, z becomes smaller. The "rate" goes down, but only because there are less workers. Less workers is not a good thing....

CNN quoted David Gewirtz as saying the US needed 2 million jobs created a year. That means just to keep up with population growth, we need 166.7K jobs a month minimum. Using the Bureau of Labor and statistics, 243k jobs were created in January 2012. This brings the unemployment rate down a full .2% according to their numbers. Sounds good - but when you read the full report - the actual decrease is not due to the ~78k job surplus (which 78k jobs is not anywhere NEAR enough to drop the unemployment rate .2%), but its because over 2 MILLION more people dropped out of the "labor pool"!

Anyone can point to the "decrease" in unemployment as a good thing - and it would be - but if you plugged the 2M+ people in - the rate would be significantly HIGHER - and climbing. Ignoring numbers the administration doesn't like to keep them out of the formula is just dishonest, and isn't anything to base a "recovery" arguement on. If the administration thinks it is - they are in for a huge shock in November.

Takeda Shingen

02-14-12, 09:28 PM

Anyone can point to the "decrease" in unemployment as a good thing - and it would be - but if you plugged the 2M+ people in - the rate would be significantly HIGHER - and climbing. Ignoring numbers the administration doesn't like to keep them out of the formula is just dishonest, and isn't anything to base a "recovery" arguement on. If the administration thinks it is - they are in for a huge shock in November.

Yeah, there is a lot of truth to that. It makes it pretty hard to determine how the economy is actually doing. You have numbers that look good, but those numbers omit other numbers that would diminish the first set of results. What a wonderful time to be alive.

CaptainHaplo

02-14-12, 10:16 PM

Yeah, there is a lot of truth to that. It makes it pretty hard to determine how the economy is actually doing. You have numbers that look good, but those numbers omit other numbers that would diminish the first set of results. What a wonderful time to be alive.

Actually - I was wrong on one thing - with any number over the ~166k per month, the unemployment rate would in fact drop. Just it would take 3 or 4 months at a gain of ~70k per month in jobs to make a .1% decrease. If you factor in the "out of the labor pool" - you are well above 8% still. Its somewhere around 11% - and if you want a source that actually explains the numbers - here ya go:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/02/09/dont-be-fooled-the-obama-unemployment-rate-is-11/3/

Yes, its a blog - but its written by a regular comtributor with professional standing and a knowledge of the subject.

However, a lot of talking heads on the right exaggerate the numbers as well. I have heard guys like Rush and Beck claim 16% of higher. How they get these numbers, I don't know - and I suspect some of them may just be "made up". Intellectual dishonesty doesn't exist on only one side, and the talking heads need to be called on to either explain their numbers, or retract the claims.

People like this:
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2012-02-04/real-unemployment-rate-more-19

Granted - just a blogger - but the explanation doesn't wash - and sorry - we have never counted incarcerated people into the equation.... What a bogus way to try and add 2% to the figure.

Another one - claiming 22% - quoting some guy who doesn't give us real numbers to back up his claim.
http://blogs.smartmoney.com/advice/2011/12/08/is-the-real-unemployment-rate-22-6/

If we want to solve the problems of our nation, we have to be willing to require data from those who will "tell" us "facts". Regardless of our political views. Otherwise, we can't identify the real problems, and thus can't find solutions.

mookiemookie

02-14-12, 10:18 PM

2 things here Mookie.

First - your right - demand does create jobs - however - there isn't a question of demand - we are a consumer nation. The problem is people don't have jobs to be able to create demand - so when jobs are created (by investors) - demand also rises. Say's Law (supply creates its own demand) is very old and isn't particularly accurate.

CNN quoted David Gewirtz as saying the US needed 2 million jobs created a year. That means just to keep up with population growth, we need 166.7K jobs a month minimum. Using the Bureau of Labor and statistics, 243k jobs were created in January 2012. This brings the unemployment rate down a full .2% according to their numbers. Sounds good - but when you read the full report - the actual decrease is not due to the ~78k job surplus (which 78k jobs is not anywhere NEAR enough to drop the unemployment rate .2%), but its because over 2 MILLION more people dropped out of the "labor pool"!

Anyone can point to the "decrease" in unemployment as a good thing - and it would be - but if you plugged the 2M+ people in - the rate would be significantly HIGHER - and climbing. Ignoring numbers the administration doesn't like to keep them out of the formula is just dishonest, and isn't anything to base a "recovery" arguement on. If the administration thinks it is - they are in for a huge shock in November.

Ok, you're COMPLETELY and TOTALLY off base here, and the reason why is elementary statistics. You cannot compare January 2012 and December 2011 figures. 2 million people did not drop out of the labor force. The difference in the figures here is due to the census adjustment.

Look at this chart and notice what happens every December:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/chgpopmonth.png

See those dips? They're yearly population adjustments. You simply cannot compare January to December, since you're counting a YEAR's worth of population adjustment in those numbers.

This is even stated clearly in the actual BLS release of the data:

Effective with the release of The Employment Situation for January 2012 scheduled for February 3, 2012, population controls that reflect the results of Census 2010 will be used in the monthly household survey estimation process. Historical data will not be revised to incorporate the new controls; consequently, household survey data for January 2012 will not be directly comparable with that for December 2011 or earlier periods. A table showing the effects of the new controls on the major labor force series will be included in the January 2012 release.

This isn't smoke and mirrors. You can't go on indefinitely without adjusting for population changes in your data.

As your central premise is based on faulty analysis, I didn't bother to read on.

This is why you and the people you're quoting are wrong. (http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/getting-it-wrong-bls-employment-report)

mookiemookie

02-14-12, 10:21 PM

Actually - I was wrong on one thing - with any number over the ~166k per month, the unemployment rate would in fact drop. Just it would take 3 or 4 months at a gain of ~70k per month in jobs to make a .1% decrease. If you factor in the "out of the labor pool" - you are well above 8% still.

However, a lot of talking heads on the right exaggerate the numbers as well. I have heard guys like Rush and Beck claim 16% of higher. How they get these numbers, I don't know - and I suspect some of them may just be "made up". Intellectual dishonesty doesn't exist on only one side, and the talking heads need to be called on to either explain their numbers, or retract the claims.

People like this:
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2012-02-04/real-unemployment-rate-more-19

Again, more people without an understanding of the data and statistics and quoting the 1.2 million people disappeared hogwash.

CaptainHaplo

02-14-12, 10:29 PM

Say's Law (supply creates its own demand) is very old and isn't particularly accurate.

Ok, you're COMPLETELY and TOTALLY off base here, and the reason why is elementary statistics. You cannot compare January 2012 and December 2011 figures. 2 million people did not drop out of the labor force. The difference in the figures here is due to the census adjustment.

Look at this chart and notice what happens every December:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/chgpopmonth.png

See those dips? They're yearly population adjustments. You simply cannot compare January to December, since you're counting a YEAR's worth of population adjustment in those numbers.

This is even stated clearly in the actual BLS release of the data:

This isn't smoke and mirrors. You can't go on indefinitely without adjusting for population changes in your data.

As your central premise is based on faulty analysis, I didn't bother to read on.

And what you failed to do Mookie is read on. Had you read the report itself in full (not my post), you would have noted the following:

These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

In other words - they took 2.8Million people "out of the pool" who wanted to be working - and just didn't count them. Don't look for a job for a month and your not counted as unemployed anymore? And you claim MY premise is faulty????

They are fudging the numbers - and you can choose to look at the data and see what it says, or you can stick your fingers in your ears, yell "LALALALALALALALALA" and ignore reality because its "anti-Obama". The choice is yours.

mookiemookie

02-14-12, 10:32 PM

And what you failed to do Mookie is read on. Had you read the report itself in full (not my post), you would have noted the following:

In other words - they took 2.8Million people "out of the pool" who wanted to be working - and just didn't count them. Don't look for a job for a month and your not counted as unemployed anymore? And you claim MY premise is faulty????

They are fudging the numbers - and you can choose to look at the data and see what it says, or you can stick your fingers in your ears, yell "LALALALALALALALALA" and ignore reality because its "anti-Obama". The choice is yours.

Or you can read the U-6 unemployment numbers and see those people being counted. No big conspiracy.

But don't link to people who quote the "1.2 million people disappeared" crap. Because that's all it is. Wrong crap and faulty analysis.

deanjjo

02-14-12, 10:35 PM

http://web.me.com/kaaina/www.web.mac.com-kaaina/Edu_Secy_files/Picture%2020.jpg

Not sure...but this picture seem to have some enlightening aura about it.:D

Oh Yes

CaptainHaplo

02-14-12, 10:52 PM

Or you can read the U-6 unemployment numbers and see those people being counted. No big conspiracy.

But don't link to people who quote the "1.2 million people disappeared" crap. Because that's all it is. Wrong crap and faulty analysis.

OK fine then Mookie - here ya go:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

The U-6 numbers state clearly - Jan 2012 unemployment - seasonally adjusted is 15.1% - not seasonally adjusted is 16.2%

You want to use those numbers to defend Obama and his great economic record?

mookiemookie

02-14-12, 11:54 PM

OK fine then Mookie - here ya go:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

The U-6 numbers state clearly - Jan 2012 unemployment - seasonally adjusted is 15.1% - not seasonally adjusted is 16.2%

You want to use those numbers to defend Obama and his great economic record?

Not defending it. In fact, I'll be the first to criticize, and have done so in the past, the ludicrous HARP and HAMP programs for example.

But regardless of what number you look at, the trend remains the same. The employment situation is gradually getting better. And recoveries from financial crises have historically been slow going.

CaptainHaplo

02-15-12, 12:18 AM

How long defines a "trend"? If you take the last 4 months then yes - U-6 has come down.

However, from Nov 2010 to May of 2011, U-6 steadily declined. That was a "trend" - till it jumped (after revision?) .4% in one month - then dropped a month, then went back up, then went up again. 6 month "trend" and then it was broken - so "trending" doesn't demonstrate anything at all.

Now if you want to point to the fact that yes, we have had more than the necessary 166.7k jobs per month - your right. But 70k adds per month is beyond anemic. Its a drop in the bucket.

Harp and Hamp are also not at issue. While they are ludicrous - they are not where the problem is. Business in this country is NOT growing anywhere near what it could. Its not investing.

WHY?

Is it because success is taxed and some want to tax it more? Is it because of overspending by the government, creating a scary currency situation for business? Is it because of consistently burgeoning over-regulation? Is it because of onerous mandates? Is it because the US Senate is unable to even provide a budget over the last three years, even though they are required to do so by law? Is it because the US continues to ignore domestic (and close by, friendly) sources of energy while telling countries in South America that we want to "be their best customer"? Is it because instead of letting capitalism work, government (on both sides) has stepped in and provided "bailouts" to their favorite entities? Is it because instead of looking at growing real, competitive industries, government is throwing money away in crony "capitalism" to so called "green energy" that cannot make it on its own merits?

This economic recovery is a joke. Its not taking off because - just like in the days of Carter, the government is standing in the way of recovery, instead of trying to speed it along. When you realize that the policies of the current president are at odds with economic growth, then you will have at least some understanding of economics. The answer is not as Obama thinks - as demonstrated in his new "budget proposal" - more and bigger government with more and bigger debt and more and higher taxes. If that was the way to prosperity, Carter would have been a huge success. Obama is continuing to push ideas that don't work - and will continue to stifle growth. And he is now being compared more and more to Carter.

Get government out of the way, and you will see a recovery that lasts a good long while, has major impetus, and will put the US back on a better footing. Or keep promoting the guy whose policies are keeping us from that rocket recovery.

Sea Demon

02-15-12, 12:45 AM

I can't believe anybody is seriously trying to defend the Obama economy. It's comical. Deficits are sky high, gas prices are up over 80%, employment and job creation are still in the tank, and the housing markets are still not showing any real progress. Obama seriously has nothing to show economically that could validate him for another 4 years. He's not fit for the office. He has no knowledge of what it takes to run a business, because he never did. But if we're talking impeachable offenses, this is more applicable:

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/4/inside-the-ring-215329133/?page=2

Seriously...why even have security clearances in the age of this administration?

Or even worse...this:

http://freebeacon.com/nuking-our-nukes/

Hello Joint Chiefs. Congress? Anybody home?

Obama is not only an economic failure....but a traitor in my opinion by weakening our national defense like this.

Stealhead

02-15-12, 01:09 AM

nikimcbee

02-15-12, 01:22 AM

nikimcbee

02-15-12, 01:26 AM

All I have to say is that the last 20 years, we've sure done a great job of picking our politicians.:shifty: Both parties are guilty.:down:

misha1967

02-15-12, 01:36 AM

can you define what it is that you mean by socialism? What forms of government spending are not socialism in your view? For example is government maintenance of public highways a form of socialism in your view? And if so, is it an acceptable form?

Now that is a very good question, defining socialism :)

Particularly since you can't hardly pin an actual socialist down on one because they're constantly running around moving the goal posts every time their latest Utopia of Next Tuesday project fails miserably, as they all do.

But it's a fair question and deserves an answer.

Contrary to Tribesman's rather simplistic belief (but he can be excused since he obviously has trouble with concepts more advanced than remembering to alternate exhaling and inhaling), I don't define it as "everything I don't like." Granted, there is a strong inverse correlation, as in "everything that is socialist, I don't like", but that's not quite the same. One of these days, if I'm massively bored, I'll introduce Tribesman to Venn diagrams, but I'll probably be better off trying to teach my dog to sing. It's more likely to be met with success and there is at least a borderline chance that it might prove enjoyable.

But back to socialism:

It used to be fairly simple: It used to be simply "the belief that everything should be collectively owned and distributed equally to all." This led to socialists taking over all property in the name of the Community, and it failed. Also, they found out that people rather resent having their property taken away at gun point, which sometimes led to unpleasant consequences for the socialists. Finally, they weren't really all that interested in taking over private industry, they just wanted the money so they could redistribute it to themselves and their friends. Running a company is too much like work, and if there's one thing that socialists hate more than somebody, somewhere having more than they do, it's actually having to work for a living.

So they found out that you could "take over" private property in other ways, such as micro-managing them through excessive regulations as well as taxing the everloving hell out of them. This required no work other than sending out goons with guns to collect, and it got them all that they were really interested in in the first place, which was the money.

In addition, they could then claim that they weren't "socialists" at all since they weren't actually, you know, taking control of the factories. They were just grabbing the wallet of the owner and emptying it into their own pockets while he had all the trouble of actually running the business.

So a different definition of socialism is necessary, and the best I've been able to come up with over the years (I had help too, didn't think it up all by myself) is that it involves taking from those who earned and giving it to those who didn't, or "redistribution of wealth" as it's also called. But that's too general as well. To refine it further, socialism involves not just the redistribution of wealth, all functional societies need to do so to an extent in order to continue to exist, but the targeted redistribution of it.

Also, it is founded on the core belief that the Common Good comes before the good of the individual or, as one socialist born in 1889 in Austria put it: "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz." Of course with the socialists in charge of what the Common Good is, which tends to coincide magically with whatever helps the socialists stay in power and control of the redistribution.

If you, as an individual, were to practice that it would land you in jail in short order. It's called "armed robbery." Harsh? Not really. If I were to put a gun to somebody's head in order to grab his money so I could keep a chunk for myself and hand some out to my fellow gang members, it would earn me a well-deserved stint in the slammer. If the government puts a gun to your head (as in threatening with dragging you off to jail if you don't pony up) so they can keep a chunk for themselves (administrative costs) and hand the rest out to voter groups that they need to keep voting for them (and yes, that makes Republicans in this country guilty of socialist acts as well), it will give them rave reviews about "social justice" in The New York Times.

Sorry about the long-windedness, but it's a serious question that deserves a serious answer and it can't be boiled down to a sentence or two.

As to your second question: Would I consider using tax funds for highways "socialism?"

Again, I can't really answer that with a yes or no.

As I mentioned before, any functional society, if it wants to keep on functioning, has to redistribute private wealth to some extent. The alternative is anarchy, and it really doesn't work out that well for most people and certainly not for nations.

Even the most resourceful among us must realize, if we're honest about it, that we can't do everything ourselves, which leads to the formation of communities, states, nations, call it what you like. They're all the same. People getting together to complement each other. You might even call them "clubs." And clubs must have membership fees to cover the basic functions that keep the club going.

As to funding national highways no, I wouldn't generally call that "socialism" as a solid infrastructure is important to the nation as a whole. It doesn't benefit any particular group. The ability to quickly move goods and, for that matter, armed forces in case of a threat to the nation, not to mention police and firefighters to protect the population from internal threats, is a cornerstone in providing a safe, prosperous society. Oh, you can surely find exceptions where a particular infrastructure project only benefits a tiny group of people (in which case they ought to damn well pay their own way), but generally speaking a good infrastructure is paramount when it comes to prosperity, safety and national security.

Speaking of national security, the same goes for paying for the armed forces over your taxes. It doesn't matter a whole lot how wonderful your society is if a neighboring one can take it all away from you without firing a shot once they find out that you have something they want. And they will. It's human nature. "He who beats his sword into a plowshare will soon find himself plowing the fields belonging to he who didn't."

Police and courts? Absolutely. The only thing keeping your stronger neighbor from kicking you in the nuts and taking all your stuff is his fear that the police will come grab him and/or you being able to wipe him out in court. If your neighbor is weaker than you... Well, then the problem will solve itself and not in his favor, but I think that we can all agree that equal protection before the law is key to maintaining a functional and honest society.

All of the above examples have one thing in common: They don't benefit any group in particular, they're all designed to keep society as a whole from falling apart into anarchy or falling prey to foreign subjugation, something that benefits all, poor and rich.

"Socialism" is the errant belief that it is somehow "unfair" that some people are better at amassing wealth than others and that they, as a result, should be punished by taking away their wealth. Needless to say, that doesn't quite encourage the amassing of wealth and, well, then you have the classical problem of socialism where they eventually run out of other people's money and everybody ends up with their weenies in the wringer. Which is then, of course, immediately blamed on capitalism, but I digress.

It's hard to get your butt out of the bed in the middle of the night in a blizzard to go catch the escaped communal cow since it's not "yours", it's "everybody's", so let "everybody" go catch the damn thing. If it's your cow, on the other hand.

I hope this clarifies things a bit :DL

misha1967

02-15-12, 01:49 AM

Some people believe anything that they read Bill Gertz clearly has an agenda and Free Bacon is a very right wing conservative publication.You do realize that he wrote both articles might as well read an issue of Pravda from 1953.

I have no familiarity with Bill Gertz, but I actually did use to read both Pravda and Izvestiya on a regular basis, and he'd really have to work hard to reach their level of mendacity.

As the saying went: "Pravda is not true and Izvestiya tells no news." (You have to understand Russian to get the joke :) )

Anyway, if Mr. Gertz is really that good, he needs to get a job with The Washington Post because, quite honestly, they really blow chunks when it comes to spin and propaganda and I'm sure they'd be able to pay better.

Stealhead

02-15-12, 01:52 AM

on a related note,
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/chicago-called-most-corrupt-city-in-nation/

We get what we vote for. Where's 1480 when you need him?

I thought it was determined in the 1920's that Chicago was the most corrupt city?:hmmm:That article was not news to me.

As you say though both parties are guilty and there are few reliable media outlets seems like the game is rigged.Some say "viva la revolution" but that is never going to happen and even if it did the old Status quo is gone to be replaced with a new one.

There are too few people just sitting around if more people actually got together and made their voices heard they would listen no violence needed problem is the two parties have so many people divided.

@ misha1967 Mr.Gertz became well known for a column known as "Inside the Ring" on the Pentagon and defense a former CIA director said that he liked the column and some of his writings because he knew where leaks where coming from which does not mean in anyway that he agreed with what Gertz was saying but that he could see how "leaky" things are.

I get your joke actually my wife was born in the Ukraine SSR though only lived in that system as a child before moving to the US whit her parents. Pravda is "truth" in Russian :DL

I dont think Gertz is to that extreme of Pravda but he is not neutral by any means.

Sea Demon

02-15-12, 02:04 AM

Some people believe anything that they read Bill Gertz clearly has an agenda and Free Bacon is a very right wing conservative publication.You do realize that he wrote both articles might as well read an issue of Pravda from 1953.

It was in his last signing statement from 2011. It's a public record. And as far as the dangerous and utterly treasonous cuts to our deterrence:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

All over A.P. And from a statements made earlier. It's also recorded and a matter of public record. Pull your head out. This isn't a left/right thing. But it seems Democrat Presidents are always very eager to make us less safe, as they put our national secrets at risk as a matter of policy. We never get anything of value in return other than a compromise in our safety and that of our allies. The Cox Report from the Clinton era was extremely damaging. Bush put an end to the foreign nationals (including Chinese and Russians) in our labs. It looks like Obama is just willing to dismantle everything, and give away the technology to reduce ballistic missile threats (a defensive system). This is serious and alarming stuff. And I hope someone in Congress will look into this seriously. This traitor in the WH should not unilaterally be able to do these things.

All I have to say is that the last 20, we've sure done a great job of picking our politicians.:shifty: Both parties are guilty.:down:

Agree to a certain extent. Both parties have their failures, and Republicans also need to be excoriated over a number of matters, but Republicans simply don't dismantle our national security apparatus with the haste that the Democrats do. Nor do Republicans wish to turn the whole nation into some sort of nanny state hell.

Stealhead

02-15-12, 02:16 AM

I never said that the entire article was not true.It has to do with the START treaty it is just his proposals it does not mean that they are going to happen. Reagan also wanted to eventually abolish or eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons you will never here these neocons say that but it is a known fact. Reagan and Gorbachev actually came very close to an agreement.Both of those articles you posted are the standard right wing conservative response.If you had posted something form a left wing media outlet it would have listed quotes by every left minded retied general (perhaps Wesley Clark) and such.

Your the blind leading the blind you said: "Agree to a certain extent. Both parties have their failures, and Republicans also need to be excoriated over a number of matters, but Republicans simply don't dismantle our national security apparatus with the haste that the Democrats do. Nor do Republicans wish to turn the whole nation into some sort of nanny state hell."

Why do the Republicans get to be excoriated over a number of matters if they are failures?On second thought do not even bother answering that question. You realize that you are saying that one group gets to make a mistake and one side does not if that is not having your head stuck in something I do not know what is.

What is the excoriation cut off I wonder:hmmm:

Pull your head out.I have never been the type foolish enough to place my proverbial head into anything in the first place. That defense system only served to make the Russians more likely to produce more missiles the USSR and the CIS treat a missile defense system as a threat because it lowers their odds off striking the US and raises the effect of our missiles the only recourse is to desire to produce more missiles the US would react in the same manner if Russia started making a defense system.

nikimcbee

02-15-12, 02:28 AM

misha1967

02-15-12, 02:36 AM

I never said that the entire article was not true.It has to do with the START treaty it is just his proposals it does not mean that they are going to happen. Reagan also wanted to eventually abolish or eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons. Reagan and Gorbachev actually came very close to an agreement.

Pull your head out.I have never been the type foolish enough to place my proverbial head into anything in the first place. That defense system only served to make the Russians more likely to produce more missiles the USSR and the CIS treat a missile defense system as a threat because it lowers their odds off striking the US and raises the effect of our missiles the only recourse is to desire to produce more missiles the US would react in the same manner if Russia started making a defense system.

First off, the START treaty is null and void as it was entered into with a nation that no longer exists. Insisting that we should abide to it would be like insisting that we had obligations to the Austria-Hungarian Empire.

As to the second part, you're absolutely correct that SDI was designed to bring the Soviet Union down. It was also designed as a general way of making us more safe, but the primary objective was to force the Soviet Union into an arms race that they had no chance of winning because they couldn't afford it. Their only "defense" was the threat that they could obliterate us with nukes because they knew full well that our technology advantage would wipe out their armies and, absent that, they'd be gone. They had no choice. They could either try to outspend us or lose from financial exhaustion. A true lose-lose scenario if ever there was one. And it brought them down without a shot being fired.

Pure genius.

Of course, now that we've managed to develop a version of SDI that actually works as opposed to the "maybe" of the original plan, we have a HUGE advantage, particularly in today's world where nuclear delivery isn't reserved to superpowers. And we'd be bloody IDIOTS to not maintain that advantage. Which is why Obama is a traitor in that respect, because he's deliberately trying to weaken us globally, no matter what his "good intentions" might be.

The only way to avoid war altogether is to make sure that your enemies know that they don't stand a chance in hell of winning one against you. That's not "aggressive", that's just common sense.

Stealhead

02-15-12, 02:39 AM

I think the best thing we could do for the country is to, have a national referrendum and term limit congress and the president to 1 term and that's it! (more so for congress) Get these career politians out! Elections to be held on April 15th.

And we need better people to run.
Between the bamster, HRC, Edwards, Palin, and Gingrich, surely the US could find better choices than this?
https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2PGvh5bOMcYl2N5EoLFCqBFZMNIAHt K27cbFhQkRNENt4kUUwDg

Are we allowed to excoriate the mistakes of our favored party if we are hard core liberal or conservative?I see a loop hole though every politician will suddenly be
strongly in favor of human cloning so they might clone themselves and have Joe Smith number 2 run after Joe Smith has to leave office.

by the way misha I am not paying attention to you.Your little comment about one party getting excused for making mistakes while another does not makes me question your "opinion".

Not sure of your background(not sure if you are Russian or former USSR citizen?) but it sounds like you replaced one Pravda with another.

I take it that you have not heard of New START which is the currently signed treaty between the US and CIS it is the follow up of the START treaty pull that head out again.

misha1967

02-15-12, 02:42 AM

Are we allowed to excoriate the mistakes of our favored party if we are hard core liberal or conservative?

I don't need any permissions, and as a conservative, don't even get me started on the stupidity of the Republicans because I'm not likely to ever stop ranting. :)

nikimcbee is right: A good first step would be term limits. Government service should be service, NOT a career choice. And that goes for both sides in that plague-ridden swamp of corruption that we know as Washington DC.

If there is ONE thing I KNOW that I agree with my liberal friends (and I have quite a few, life isn't all about politics, you know) on, it's that we're all sick and tired of slick bastards promising us the moon in return for our vote, only to see them turn into the same old group of corrupt, bribe-taking villains that we wanted to throw out in the first place the very moment that the prostitutes get seated behind their new desks.

Betonov

02-15-12, 02:56 AM

Government service should be service, NOT a career choice.

I am sooo using this. :salute:

Stealhead

02-15-12, 02:57 AM

@ misha Well we seem to more in agreement with most everything I was not being clear on referring to NewStart I am 50/50 on your thoughts of START I have very good friend of mine who is an officer in the USAF missile command he agrees with NEW START as do I though he informs me that even within missile command there is much discussion on it some agree others disagree. sorry I have confused your post with Sea Demons :timeout:

do disregard if you would from my previous post: "by the way misha I am not paying attention to you.Your little comment about one party getting excused for making mistakes while another does not makes me question your "opinion".

Not sure of your background(not sure if you are Russian or former USSR citizen?) but it sounds like you replaced one Pravda with another."

Do forgive me I am currently in my hotel room stone drunk in Southeast Asia my vacation time.

nikimcbee

02-15-12, 02:58 AM

I don't need any permissions, and as a conservative, don't even get me started on the stupidity of the Republicans because I'm not likely to ever stop ranting. :)

nikimcbee is right: A good first step would be term limits. Government service should be service, NOT a career choice. And that goes for both sides in that plague-ridden swamp of corruption that we know as Washington DC.

If there is ONE thing I KNOW that I agree with my liberal friends (and I have quite a few, life isn't all about politics, you know) on, it's that we're all sick and tired of slick bastards promising us the moon in return for our vote, only to see them turn into the same old group of corrupt, bribe-taking villains that we wanted to throw out in the first place the very moment that the prostitutes get seated behind their new desks.

I live in a one party rule state (ore-gone), so I've had my fill of it. They just filled david wu's seat:
(this guy)http://2media.nowpublic.net/images//1b/f3/1bf3034346152a2cba8f21534cdb13c7.jpg

The person who replaced him, her husband is wu's lawyer!:haha: The only job the lady had held was a legislator in Salem and a trial lawyer.:har::dead:

If it weren't for the tech industry, this state would be an economic black hole. 1 in 6 in ore-gone work for the state, but I've bitched about that enough.

Stealhead

02-15-12, 03:07 AM

I think I saw that guy a few hours ago probably served me some booze .:har:

I think we need to put into witness protection misha1967 his very true statement: Government service should be service, NOT a career choice.Is likely going to result in the worlds slime balls err politictions hiring hit men to find him and "relocate" him such ideas are very dangerous to their bottom line.

nikimcbee

02-15-12, 03:11 AM

I think I saw that guy a few hours ago probably served me some booze .:har:

See, he had a "D" next to his name, so everybody voted for him.:yeah:

Stealhead

02-15-12, 03:18 AM

D stands for Drunkard right?

R stands for Rich Bastard

I stands for Idiot you just wasted your vote

I actually once worked as a poll worker during an election at the end of the night we all have to go though the paper ballots to look for the ones that cant be counted because the person was a nut bag you would be shocked what some people write on the ballots or how many fill in every slot.

Cant wait to see my posts when I wake up I am spending alot of time editing them I think they are understandably reasonable the cost of WiFI in this hotel could be more reasonable.

Betonov

02-15-12, 03:25 AM

I actually once worked as a poll worker during an election at the end of the night we all have to go though the paper ballots to look for the ones that cant be counted because the person was a nut bag you would be shocked what some people write on the ballots or how many fill in every slot.

Tell me about it. Last decembers parlamentary elections in Slovenia :DL

http://sonckinsvet.blog.siol.net/files/2011/12/384467_10150411139178691_109397923690_8779593_8577 75931_n.jpg

Tribesman

02-15-12, 03:27 AM

I hope this clarifies things a bit
It certainly does, which is why it was asked in the first place...but obviously you had difficulty reading that simple question and went off babbling, which also further displays another question which was answered:rotfl2:
So your answer on definition was...."things you don't like or don't get".
Well done, you even managed to further tie yourself in knots trying to get round your problem of trying to avoid the definition, indeed you appear to be you stuck in a loop of circular logic:yeah:
Face it Misha you babble about socialism yet are unable to define it, and are strongly in favour of a mixed economy but are uncomfortable with facing that simple truth as you think it maybe somehow socialist.

First off, the START treaty is null and void as it was entered into with a nation that no longer exists.
How is it possible to have such an epic fail on something so basic?
should we go into states and treaties lesson 101?
or should it just be.......
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Priceless, keep it up.

If there is ONE thing I KNOW that I agree with my liberal friends (and I have quite a few, life isn't all about politics, you know) on, it's that we're all sick and tired of slick bastards promising us the moon in return for our vote, only to see them turn into the same old group of corrupt, bribe-taking villains that we wanted to throw out in the first place the very moment that the prostitutes get seated behind their new desks.
If only you stuck to that line you would be fine

Stealhead

02-15-12, 03:29 AM

Chuck Norris:har: sadly at least in the US "the most interesting man in the world"
is stealing a little bit of Chucks thunder of course only because Chuck Norris always him to live.

@Tribesman I suppose you can use my Pravda statement if you like if it suits you feelings about the post by misha you are thinking of I had actually mistaken a post by Sea Demon (as having been misha's) who stated:

"Both parties have their failures, and Republicans also need to be excoriated over a number of matters, but Republicans simply don't dismantle our national security apparatus with the haste that the Democrats do. Nor do Republicans wish to turn the whole nation into some sort of nanny state hell."

Nevermind then you edited it out sneaky you almost got caught.

Sorry jet lag and drinking in Thailand bad mix.

Tribesman

02-15-12, 04:22 AM

Nevermind then you edited it out sneaky you almost got caught.

He is taken apart enough as it is, the quote was applicable over the topic as he seems to be parroting an ideology based line from the "liberal media" of the chalkboard without actually thinking.
I added the last bit instead as you can see he ain't thick, he just needs to apply it more instead of falling for the "its them and that" all the time.

mookiemookie

02-15-12, 07:23 AM

then you will have at least some understanding of economics.

I deal with economics for a living and with all due respect, I'll pass on taking lessons from bloggers who don't understand even the basics of statistics and who can get something as simple as a yearly population adjustment wrong. Ideologues aren't who I go to for an understanding of economics.

Idiocy like the repeal of Glass Steagall was "government getting out of the way of business." It's not the answer to all of our economic ills and can have unintended consequences that are just as bad as excessive regulation.

CaptainHaplo

02-15-12, 09:10 AM

I deal with economics for a living and with all due respect, I'll pass on taking lessons from bloggers who don't understand even the basics of statistics and who can get something as simple as a yearly population adjustment wrong. Ideologues aren't who I go to for an understanding of economics.

Idiocy like the repeal of Glass Steagall was "government getting out of the way of business." It's not the answer to all of our economic ills and can have unintended consequences that are just as bad as excessive regulation.

I totally agree that Glass Steagall repeal was a horrible mistake. Yes, total deregulation leads to abuse. We can agree there.

However, one can point to regulation that is in place, but not actually done - like what occured with Fannie/Freddie - that shows yet another side to the problem.

We do not need more laws or regulations in this country. If we enforced the ones we have - at least we would have a baseline on what works and what doesn't - but politicians are more about making new rules and giving themselves more power than they are about using what they have to the benefit of the country.

To fix the country - you have to change that fact - and that means the culture in Washington - on both sides - has to change.

Which leads back to the point - unemployment is over 15%, Obama is engaged in crony capitalism at its worst, the government is doing its best to "pick" who survives and who doesnt in the business world, all while they mandate how private businesses will work and what we the citizens must purchase....

Say what you want about the "evil" republicans - but the above isn't what this country is supposed to be - and supporting Obama does nothing more than support more debt, a failing economy that rewards failure with bailouts and leaves the "working" class to die on the vine and more "programs" that waste what money we have.

Think about that when you go vote in November.....

mookiemookie

02-15-12, 09:42 AM

Think about that when you go vote in November.....

I live in one of the reddest of red states. There are plenty of morons here who'd elect a flower pot so long as it was listed as (R) on the ballot. It's safe to say any vote for anything but a republican is wasted here. Another fun aspect of our antiquated Electoral College system.

August

02-15-12, 10:36 AM

I live in one of the reddest of red states. There are plenty of morons here who'd elect a flower pot so long as it was listed as (R) on the ballot. It's safe to say any vote for anything but a republican is wasted here. Another fun aspect of our antiquated Electoral College system.

Don't feel bad Mookie, it all balances out. I live in a state as blue as they come and there are plenty of morons who'd elect the same flower pot so long as it was listed as (D) on the ballot. Wanna trade electoral votes? :DL

mookiemookie

02-15-12, 10:55 AM

Don't feel bad Mookie, it all balances out. I live in a state as blue as they come and there are plenty of morons who'd elect the same flower pot so long as it was listed as (D) on the ballot. Wanna trade electoral votes? :DL

Haha someone beat you to the idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_pairing)

JU_88

02-15-12, 11:02 AM

mookiemookie

02-15-12, 11:31 AM

Americans should do themselves a favour and just vote for anyone who isnt a D or an R, just do get them both out. haven't they run your great country in to the ground enough already?
Your soverein debt is though the roof, and your civil rights are down the toilet.
Yet you still vote for the same old Donkeys and Elephants who sold you out a long time ago?
Well Good luck with that! :woot:

They've gotten very good at marketing. It usually goes:

Get upset with the way things are going in the country.
Believe Party B, who's not in power, when they say it's all the fault of Party A, who's in power.
Elect Party B.
Party B inevitably screws things up worse.
Get upset with the way things are going in the country.
Party A says it's all Party B's fault.
Elect Party A.
Repeat ad infinitum

Most Americans are too busy with their iPhones and Real Housewives shows to give a thought to how stupid the political system in this country has become. They rely on bloggers and TV pundits to do their thinking for them. Since Party A and Party B like this system of entrenched power, they give the bloggers and pundits their talking points and make sure that any talk of a third party or alternatives to the status quo are marginalized, demonized, discredited and obliterated from the national discourse.

And the beat goes on.

AVGWarhawk

02-15-12, 11:35 AM

Most Americans are too busy with their iPhones and Real Housewives shows to give a thought to how stupid the political system in this country has become. They rely on bloggers and TV pundits to do their thinking for them. Since Party A and Party B like this system of entrenched power, they give the bloggers and pundits their talking points and make sure that any talk of a third party or alternatives to the status quo are marginalized, demonized, discredited and obliterated from the national discourse.

True.

People usually vote with what is in their wallet. If the wallet is empty those running the place are usually dumped for something else.

That single question by Ronald Reagan, "Are you better off today than four years ago?" has a habit of coming back to haunt us.

Tribesman

02-15-12, 11:36 AM

And the beat goes on.
You could always have a revolution.
Call it the American revolution
Oh you tried that already.
which begs the question, is team R the whigs or is it team D? or are they just politicians like politicians which are like politicians......

mookiemookie

02-15-12, 11:43 AM

You could always have a revolution.
Call it the American revolution
Oh you tried that already.

A gramme is better than a damn. Hey did you see the latest Budweiser commercial? Did you download the new app? Look at this picture of a kitty!

What were we talking about again?

nikimcbee

02-15-12, 01:31 PM

Don't feel bad Mookie, it all balances out. I live in a state as blue as they come and there are plenty of morons who'd elect the same flower pot so long as it was listed as (D) on the ballot. Wanna trade electoral votes? :DL

Wow, we just elected a flower pot.:haha::dead: (to replace the broken one)

JU_88

02-15-12, 02:04 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWAUHt9dHcs

nikimcbee

02-15-12, 02:14 PM

@ mookie
Awhile ago, you said you like Ron Paul (or something along those lines, I don't remember)

Just curious what points you like about him.:hmmm:

nikimcbee

02-15-12, 02:19 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWAUHt9dHcs

Interesting video. I like the welfare state vs warfare state. Either way, it's going to be too hard their tenticles from the money pie.

JU_88

02-15-12, 02:34 PM

@ mookie
Awhile ago, you said you like Ron Paul (or something along those lines, I don't remember)

Just curious what points you like about him.:hmmm:

Although Im not Mookie,
What is there to not like about Ron, Honestly I could watch him on Youtube all day! I can't say that about any other politician ever :DL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9ZjgANOhlA&feature=related
Ron beats the crap out of almost anyone in a debate, why? because he unlike so many, is man enough to face up to the reality of Americas biggest problems and speak openly and honestly about them and offer drastic, yet seemingly plausible long term solutions.
He is radical, but imo - radical is exactly what America and indeed the world needs right now, not another Bush/Obama who will only dig America in to a deeper hole..
Ron sounds like he is geared up for proper change, not phoney Obama change, I just doubt he will beable to pull it off. Too many of the American people are too far gone to even understand that America is systematicaly being transformed in to somthing that every American would have been 100% against 50 years ago. And most of congress is too deep in the pockets of the co-operate elite.

nikimcbee

02-15-12, 02:40 PM

@ JU
Do you have anybody like him (Paul) in the UK?

JU_88

02-15-12, 02:53 PM

@ JU
Do you have anybody like him (Paul) in the UK?

I wish we did, but no, we have no one like him.
The only thing I can say for David Cameron (our current conservative PM) while he is not doing a great job -he is at least he is trying to bring down our national defecit, he is yet to sign any bill that further harms our civil rights and he is not a crazy zionist war mongerer.
so in those respects he is tolerable. Certainly prefer him to Tony Blair.
Blair was like the UKs Obama in 1997, we though he was going to be great - he was bloody awful!
I used to be Labour (left) supporter but they are no better or worse overall than the Conservatives, so I dont do partisan any more.
To steal a metaphore from Deng Xao Ping, "It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice"

nikimcbee

02-15-12, 03:42 PM

I wish we did, but no, we have no one like him.
The only thing I can say for David Cameron (our current conservative PM) while he is not doing a great job -he is at least he is trying to bring down our national defecit, he is yet to sign any bill that further harms our civil rights and he is not a crazy zionist war mongerer.
so in those respects he is tolerable. Certainly prefer him to Tony Blair.
Blair was like the UKs Obama in 1997, we though he was going to be great - he was bloody awful!
I used to be Labour (left) supporter but they are no better or worse overall than the Conservatives, so I dont do partisan any more.
To steal a metaphore from Deng Xao Ping, "It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice"

Thanks for the insight.:salute:

mookiemookie

02-15-12, 04:14 PM

@ mookie
Awhile ago, you said you like Ron Paul (or something along those lines, I don't remember)

Just curious what points you like about him.:hmmm:

I think he acts as a nice foil to conventional thinking on monetary policy. A lot of his ideas are far out there (such as ending the Federal Reserve) but what I really admire is his guts in standing up to the GOP establishment on foreign policy and civil rights. He sees the real issue with this country is not a descent into socialism, but rather fascism.

He rightly called out Obama on Libya, and I really subscribe to his non-interventionalist idea. We've created a lot of our own problems by meddling in the Middle East and creating guys like Saddam and bin Laden, and enough's enough. We've spent too much American wealth and blood by being the world's policeman and it's time we knock off the nation building and democracy spreading and get our own house in order.

I think he's a nice counterpoint to a lot of traditional thinking in Washington.

CaptainHaplo

02-15-12, 06:51 PM

I think he acts as a nice foil to conventional thinking on monetary policy. A lot of his ideas are far out there (such as ending the Federal Reserve) but what I really admire is his guts in standing up to the GOP establishment on foreign policy and civil rights. He sees the real issue with this country is not a descent into socialism, but rather fascism.

He rightly called out Obama on Libya, and I really subscribe to his non-interventionalist idea. We've created a lot of our own problems by meddling in the Middle East and creating guys like Saddam and bin Laden, and enough's enough. We've spent too much American wealth and blood by being the world's policeman and it's time we knock off the nation building and democracy spreading and get our own house in order.

I think he's a nice counterpoint to a lot of traditional thinking in Washington.

Paul's fiscal ideas are great. He has an economic understanding that is unrivalled with the current other candidates. He is a little flaky on "constitutional rights" - civil rights as it were. Some are great - others he not only went off the farm with, he went to other planets....

His foreign policy is flawed, because he fails to comprehend that one you get in a pasture with a bull, step it the cowpies, and get see the bull sizing you up for a charge, you can't just pat it on the head, smile and say "don't mind me, I'm leaving now"..... He doesn't get the danger a nuclear Iran creates - not just for the region, but for us. He doesn't comprehend the dangers of sitting idly by while Islamic radicals take over 25% or more of the world. He doesn't understand that being a superpower comes with responsibility.

Yes, Mookie is right - we should not be nation building - and we shouldn't be the worlds policeman. What we should be is a superpower willing to flex our muscles when a friend and ally in the world is threatened, a force that will take clearly announced threats to our citizens seriously, and a power that the world knows is sitting home, watching, waiting - because no one wants us to come outside (our borders) and start knocking heads....

Stealhead

02-15-12, 09:27 PM

Yes, Mookie is right - we should not be nation building - and we shouldn't be the worlds policeman. What we should be is a superpower willing to flex our muscles when a friend and ally in the world is threatened, a force that will take clearly announced threats to our citizens seriously, and a power that the world knows is sitting home, watching, waiting - because no one wants us to come outside (our borders) and start knocking heads....

Here in lies the problem one can not be a super power and not have long term forward bases in other nations there are too many interests outside of the United States for the US not to have a constant presence in some locations.In the modern world if you are a super power then you also have made yourself the worlds policeman if you help your allies and friends then you are the police man in effect.You directly contradict yourself by agreeing with the need to combat Islamic radicals(They are a long way from being on the verge of controlling half of the world though) to combat them you must do one of two things or a combination you must either commit your own military forces to the given region to combat the threat or you must influence the majority of that regions population to be willing to combat the threat on their own both militarily and civilly (nation building) either way that is going to cost money.

To support the idea of the US being a superpower but at the same time feeling that we should stay with in our own borders is simply a contradiction in terms you can not have your cake and eat it too.The US has had an interventionalist mind set for some time long before the modern times we love our Monroe doctrine as I said though by wanting to be a superpower that helps it allies and "friends" you also make yourself a police man your little ally is getting bullied "Hey tough guy leave me alone the USA is my buddy."

CaptainHaplo

02-15-12, 10:54 PM

Here in lies the problem one can not be a super power and not have long term forward bases in other nations there are too many interests outside of the United States for the US not to have a constant presence in some locations.In the modern world if you are a super power then you also have made yourself the worlds policeman if you help your allies and friends then you are the police man in effect.You directly contradict yourself by agreeing with the need to combat Islamic radicals(They are a long way from being on the verge of controlling half of the world though) to combat them you must do one of two things or a combination you must either commit your own military forces to the given region to combat the threat or you must influence the majority of that regions population to be willing to combat the threat on their own both militarily and civilly (nation building) either way that is going to cost money.

To support the idea of the US being a superpower but at the same time feeling that we should stay with in our own borders is simply a contradiction in terms you can not have your cake and eat it too.The US has had an interventionalist mind set for some time long before the modern times we love our Monroe doctrine as I said though by wanting to be a superpower that helps it allies and "friends" you also make yourself a police man your little ally is getting bullied "Hey tough guy leave me alone the USA is my buddy."

No - there is no contradiction in terms. The problem is that you are subscribing to the notion that force means boots on the ground for extended periods of time. Yes, some "forward bases" are necessary - but we have those. Let us use a hypothetical example, shall we? Lets say Syria doesn't have any internal turmoil. They decide to try and retake the Heights, and use Hezbollah to initiate and divert the Israelis in Lebanaon. A plausible scenario. Then, they strike, taking Golan. An attack on an ally is an attack on us. We could flatten Damascus from the air. We could launch a "piercing" strike (similiar to the invasion of Iraq) that goes in, hits hard at its targets (in this case, the Syrian Government) - and does so flattening anything in its way. Then it turns around, and lets Syria deal with the utter chaos of what is left. We could respond in any number of ways with overwelming force.

No nation building. No worry about "collateral damage". You want to stop being the policeman, then make sure the world knows that if they make you show up, your not going to read them their miranda warnings and see them in court. Your going to bloody them badly, embarrass them on the world stage, and then walk off leavingthem to deal with the chaos their own stupidity has caused.

This is why Sun-Tzu advised politics and war to stay seperate. He understood that you can't play diplomat or politician when it comes time for a fight. You do what you must, you do it quickly and with maximum effect, and you get the heck back home.

Lets pretend the above scenario occured - and our response was to carpet bomb Damascus with a flight of heavily escorted B-52's. Do you think other nations in the region would look to pick a fight with us or our friends, knowing that their center of power would turn into a shattered, crattered ruin? Do you think governments who tacitly support terrorists (like Pakistan) would not be faced with the realization that their support of such elements leads to their own destruction? Self-presevation is a powerful instinct in humans - and even more so in politicians.....

Stealhead

02-15-12, 11:44 PM

No nation building. No worry about "collateral damage". You want to stop being the policeman, then make sure the world knows that if they make you show up, your not going to read them their miranda warnings and see them in court. Your going to bloody them badly, embarrass them on the world stage, and then walk off leavingthem to deal with the chaos their own stupidity has caused.

Oh yes just like we did in what was it? Oh World War I a lot of good your idea did then that humiliated foe turned around and the whole mess started all over again.

Sun Tzu would say that such a plan is foolish.

We gave aid to the Afghans to fight the Soviets when they left we did nothing left their destroyed nation to crumble look at what the result was.

Carpet bomb Damascus what a grand idea lets kill all the Syrians who cares if they are on the side of Assad or not that will add even more followers in for the Islamic extremist camp.. why are you not in the joint chiefs?If you think that we should be non-interventists why then do you promote bombing them with B-52s in the first place that sounds very interventinst to me.

I think the IDF can well handle itself against Syria with their current little "problem" and even withotut they are not going to attack Israel any time soon.Do you really think that the IDF is stupid enough to not consider such a ruse?They have most of their crack forces sitting and waiting for Syria to be stupid enough to try and take the Golan heights.Any nation or group of nations stupid enough to try and invade Israel is in for a world of hurt and that is without our help they simply have a far superior military than any foe in the region.And Israel confirms that your theory of just having a strong military is not enough to stop stop someone from attacking you when the enemies of Israel saw that they could not win fighting a conventional war they resorted to terrorist style attacks. Syria did not invade the Golan Heights in 1983 when the IDF was in Lebanon nor did they do anything in 2006 because on both occations there was more than enough force in Israel to make such a move a very poor idea not to mention the fact that such action would make the deployed IDF forces turn round right away.

To be honest I am not really a big fan of the US having to risk our lives for Israel of course I am not one of the ones that thinks that Israel is the 51st state and am not anti Jewish either I'd look pretty damn stupid if I where seeing as my wife is jewish.

CaptainHaplo

02-16-12, 12:21 AM

Steelhead - you seem to confuse non-intervention - aka world police - with isolationism. Non-intervention means we don't get involved unless we need to. In the case above - I put forth a hypothetical situation in which our ally was attacked. Doing so requires a response - and if we are a superpower, the response should be overwhelming, quick and complete.

There was no such action in WW1 - not sure where you got that idea. However, the close of WW2 is a perfect example.... instead of invading, we demonstrated we could annihilate the enemy at will - and the leadership folded because it knew it could not even fight what it faced.
If you doubt the extremism of the Japanese power structure, then you have missed the lessons of history that are readily available....

As for Afghanistan - yes we "left" after helping them run the Soviets out. What would have been the outcome had we stayed? Some utopian society? I think not. Non-intervention means we don't decide for a people HOW they build or rebuild - we simply protect our own and our friends. Perhaps "non" is a misnomer here - we should have a minimalist intervention policy.

The idea of superior power is that we don't have to use it. Its there as a deterrent as much as anything. Sure, sometimes someone will get "uppity" and poke the junkyard dog with a stick. When that happens, they get bit, and all the neighborhood kids learn - don't poke the dog with a stick - he bites.

What your demonstrating is the inherent flaw in most modern thinking. Who blows up themselves to kill others? Is it the rank and file "extremist", or is it the leadership? That's right - its the rank and file. Why is that? Its because the powers that be don't care to get themselves martyred - they like life too much. Look at Bin Laden - when the chips were down what did he do - pushed a woman in front of himself to try and save his miserable hide. He was as scared of death as the dictators that are found hiding in pits and sewer pipes. The "extremist" leaders don't believe in this mess any more than you or I do - they simply use the combination of religious indoctrination and economic hopelessness to manipulate the weak minded. It is THIS that shows where the weakness is. When Muhmar Q got bombed by Reagan, what did he do? He got off the world stage, stopped sponsoring terrorism - all in the interest of self preservation. He knew that the US wouldn't go after him further if he "behaved". Course, he later fell to his own people - but he could back down from the US and get us to leave him alone - he couldn't do that with his own people.

The true leaders, movers and shakers of extremism don't believe one word of the crap they spew. Well ok - maybe a couple of them do - but most don't. That is why you target the leadership - and not just of the extremists themselves - but those that provide the material support such groups need. Again - do you really think Pakistan would have worked so hard to hide Bin Laden if they knew such an act would result in islamabad (and them) deing ravaged? No - as I said - self preservation is a powerful instinct.

Sure - we might have to have 2 or 3 examples of the danger is screwing with us or our friends, but I assure you - the lesson would take. Lets say we used the earlier scenario to deal with Syria, Lebanan (for harboring terrorists that attack Israel). 2 examples. Think Komeni would be wondering how safe he is sitting in Tehran - knowing that providing training and IED's in Iraq is something we will view as an act of provocation at best, an act of war at most.... He will be considering cutting off the funding and aid to such groups - because he won't want to be next......

Yes, extremists exist - but they are simply the tools of those in power who use them to insure their continued grip on the reighns. If you want to end "terror" - you cut off its head - the leaders who promote - and facilitate - such acts. You don't even have to kill them all - just make them feel their own mortality - and watch the vast majority of them change their actions. Won't stop them all - but convince enough to shape up - and the flow of supplies and money will dry up. It gets a lot harder to blow up innocents when you don't have any explosives....

Stealhead

02-16-12, 12:30 AM

nikimcbee

02-16-12, 12:45 AM

Muhmar Q stopped supporting terrorism in the 2000s nearly 20 years after Reagan bombed him in 1986 the worst attack that he supported the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 occurred in 1988 so I think the bombings in 1986 served to anger him.

If I remember, we cam pretty close to nailing him. I remember those air raids.

Stealhead

02-16-12, 12:57 AM

One of his sons was killed but my point was that those bombings obviously did not convince him to stop his behavior he finally played ball around 2005 and Libya was removed from the terror list in 2006.

If I recall it was in retaliation for bombing of a German night club frequented by american soldiers.

Tribesman

02-16-12, 02:54 AM

Haplo, you seem to be using a lot of supporting examples which are counterfactual.
If the examples are not true then they do not support your position.

those bombings obviously did not convince him to stop his behavior he finally played ball around 2005
It cost a lot of money and a huge pile of "special offer" business deals to make him play ball, plus they had to give in to that blackmail thing on the medics and then pay up again and again over the illegal immigrants.

02-16-12, 04:23 AM

Persia is not Libya.
One of the reasons they wants nukes is to be able to do their business without warring of being bombed.
Some little pay off here or there will not do the job.

JU_88

02-16-12, 05:13 AM

Platapus

02-16-12, 06:41 AM

Paul hasn't got a chance though, even if he was president in 2012, I doubt he'd get anything though congress. He'd have almost no backing from his own party.

Which is the reason why Paul should not be president. The number one criteria for POTUS, in my opinion, is the ability to "make the deal" with Congress. I think we have learned this with President Obama.

A president that can't get congress on their side will be a failure as a president. Unfortunately, this means that absent of an absolute change over in both houses (which would take about 12 years due to the staggered terms), we are stuck with Dumbos and Jackasses.

Look at Paul's legislative record in the House. How many of his bills have even made it out of committee? Voting pretty much against everything is not the way to build up political capital. As POTUS, Paul would be fighting both parties on every decision. We might even see congress team up just to block vetoes against Paul.

This raises the question: Can any of the remaining Republican Keystone Kops running for president demonstrate an ability to "make the deal" with congress.

Newton is probably the only one with actual experience, but on a personal level, I don't want many of the deals he would make.

To me, an attractive POTUS candidate would be a long time Senator who has a demonstrated history of making cross party deals. Unfortunately in the decisive political environment we have these days, I fear there ain't none.

And that's depressing.

CaptainHaplo

02-16-12, 07:10 AM

"There was no such action in WW1 - not sure where you got that idea."

I have no idea what you are thinking of here.I was pointing out that the allies left the Axis forces of WWI in humiliation and it only served in Germany wanting revenge for its humiliation and a mere 20 years later another costly war was the result.

Ok I misunderstood you - I thought you meant WW1 saw the US use "overpowering force" to suddenly end conflict.

We never had troops in Afghanistan then only our money and weapons we could have easily given aid to the Afghan factions that where not pro extremist fundamentalist after the Soviets left.

Sure we did - they were called "advisers" - but then if we give "aid" to specific groups in a nation in turmoil, we are in effect nation building....

You are nit picking your results as well we did not invade Japan but we damn sure did invade Germany.You are nit picking facts to make your world view correct and completely ignoring facts that disprove your views.

No, I am providing a contrast between what happens when we use overwhelming force and when we don't.

And intervention is a buzz word really someone can come up with a reason to intervene.You cant just go blow them all up and leave it is never that easy.

Why not? See your stuck in that modern, conventional thinking again. I am not saying that its a perfect answer by any means, but recent history shows us that long term intervention is to costly and doesn't work. Pure isolationism is to dangerous to our long term survival. So its time to break the pattern and do something entirely different.

Komeni has been dead since 1989 I think he fells pretty safe or at least has little concern for this world. Perhaps you mean the current Grand Ayatollah of Iran or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the current president.

I spelled it wrong - khamenei - and he is the current supreme ayatollah in Iran. Guys like him and Rafsanjani are the ones who hold true power in Iran.

Muhmar Q stopped supporting terrorism in the 2000s nearly 20 years after Reagan bombed him in 1986 the worst attack that he supported the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 occurred in 1988 so I think the bombings in 1986 served to anger him the 1986 bombing must have really had an effect on him.

Really? What terrorists acts did Libya support/finance after 1986 through 2000? Q kept his head down when it came to such actions after the bombing.

You read some interesting history books I will give that.The only that i agree with out of anything you said in your last post was about the WWII Japanese government but you are wrong that our bombing convinced them for there was an attempted coup to try and stop the Hirohito from announcing the surrender even if it meant killing him something extremely drastic in Shinto culture.

Your proving my point - a few extremists in the military in Japan didn't want to surrender. However, they could not convince even the rest of the Military High Command to overthrow the Emperor. The majority of people in positions of power chose surrender - ie. self-preservation. Thus - the coup failed. The fanatacism of a few did not carry the day when faces with the desire to continue survival (even at great "dishonor" in defeat) at the end. Overwhelming force that you can't hope to defend against has the effect of bringing rational thought to most people.....

No dictator is truly ever the only power in a government. He has those around him that carry out his orders. If enough of the next few teirs of power fear for their lives, they won't obey suicidal directions. History shows us that the true fanatics in power are often not numerous.....

Edit - ok I was incorrect on tehe 1988 Pan am Bombing - for some reason I remembered that as being attributed to Iran, not Libya - so you are correct that MQ did continue to support terror.

Tribesman

02-16-12, 09:32 AM

Really? What terrorists acts did Libya support/finance after 1986 through 2000? Q kept his head down when it came to such actions after the bombing.

Look at the dates you just quoted and responded to.
I see you noted the big one instantly
But then you have the huge pile of european ones, then you have the US ambassador getting murdered and Daffys own family getting convicted of that crime, then you have his adventures in Lebanon and then in Palestine back to Chad and Niger and Mali and Mauritania and Sudan and western sahara.
After France bombed him into surrender he went on and financed the revolution to overthrow of Frances friend. Meanwhile he also repeated his coastal claims with the US giving the same results as previous.

So I don't know how on earth even if you thought Pan Am was an Iranian job you could possibly claim he was keeping his head down after that bombing in '86 as that was a period when he went on a real rampage of terrorism and terrorst financing.

Sorry Haplo, but it isn't the first time you have made this claim about the bombing of Libya working and it isn't the first time you have been told you are getting most of your facts completely backwards on it.

Stealhead

02-16-12, 10:31 AM

An here lies the problem with that, the US doesn't have that money, so It cant sustain that military empire without further increasing its frederal defecit.
The US just like every other nation in the western hemisphere, has to stop spending money it doesnt have and start paying off it debts, because if doesnt, it will default or worse -collapes the Dollar altogether.
Then we're all right back to where we were in the 1930s (x 10)

I was not necessarily supporting either model.It is plainly obvious that maintaining a "super power" size military one that "intervenes as needed":88)
or not it gong to be expensive either way.Of course I don't see any western nation choosing to pay off its debts when there is still a very willing lender out there.(China)

Hapalos little "outside of modern thinking" plan is not going to help with our deficit any we all know that most politicians will simply come up with a lot of reasons to intervene.

@ CaptainHapolo like I said before if you think that Libya stopped supporting terror after the 1986 bombing by the US you are looking foolish to about 99% of the the subsim members that read the general topics.

Khamenei is Irans attempt to control the worlds Shia population by claiming that Iran is the protector of all Shia in reality it has actually provided aid to the enemies of neighboring countries during the Nagorno-Karabakh War Iran backed the ethnic Armenian(Armenians are mostly Christian Orthodox) side not the Azerbaijani (they are Muslim and many are Shia) the reason being is the Azerbaijani are Turkic peoples and Iran dislikes this bunch alot they fear the threat that this ethnic group generates.Surely Khamenei allowed this him being the great leader and all.

02-16-12, 10:35 AM

Meanwhile in Iran....

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/1.png

Stealhead

02-16-12, 10:47 AM

This thread has really taken an interesting turn from impeachable offences to Iran.

Spiffy picture of Djad he is not wearing is usual members only jacket must have dressed up he wants to look good when the US decides to intervene after it gets another loan from China.

By the way Haplo the CIA advisers where all in Pakistan during the Soviet-Afghan War.I know it does not say that in your "Beginners Guide to Non-internationalism and minimal internationalism".

02-16-12, 11:33 AM

This thread has really taken an interesting turn from impeachable offences to Iran.

shi'it happens...:haha:

CaptainHaplo

02-16-12, 12:24 PM

@ CaptainHapolo like I said before if you think that Libya stopped supporting terror after the 1986 bombing by the US you are looking foolish to about 99% of the the subsim members that read the general topics.

I like that - I edited my post concerning libya and terrorism at 8:59. No one had yet pointed out my error - and in the interest of full disclosure I pointed it out myself and let my original comment stay in acceptance of the error. Then you come along an hour and a half later and try to act like the correction was not there and your pointing it out to make me look foolish? People simply need to look at the timestamp of the edit and your followup post to see that I had already corrected myself - well before your "foolish" comment.

Classy - real classy there Steelhead. Lets deal with another mischaracterization you have made.....
By the way Haplo the CIA advisers where all in Pakistan during the Soviet-Afghan War.I know it does not say that in your "Beginners Guide to Non-internationalism and minimal internationalism".

To quote wikipedia....

US "Paramilitary Officers" from the CIA's Special Activities Division were instrumental in training, equipping and sometimes leading Mujihadeen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujihadeen) forces against the Soviet Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Army)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Foreign_involvement_and_ aid_to_the_mujahideen

Maybe you want another source?

During the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, Paramilitary Operations Officers were instrumental in training, equipping and sometimes leading Mujihadeen forces against the Red Army.
http://www.shadowspear.com/united-states-special-operations/other-government-agency-special-operations/1169.html

Kind of hard to lead a raid against someone without crossing a border, isn't it? Or are you going to claim that the Russians invaded Pakistan at the same time?

Also recall that your original comment was:
You directly contradict yourself by agreeing with the need to combat Islamic radicals(They are a long way from being on the verge of controlling half of the world though)

Again you exaggerate my statement - I said "25%", you somehow doubled the number and tried to pass it off as my words. Oh, and I stated repeatedly that the Syria "situation" was a hypothetical that did not take into account current conditions there - yet you started jabbering about how it would kill all the anti-Assad people.

So you want to make comments about me looking foolish? Really? I've now pointed out how you have blatently ignored my correction, tried to pass my error off as some big pie on my face when I have shown I corrected the error before you even noted it - you simply ignored that little fact. I've demonstrated (with sources) that your wrong about US personnel in Afghanistan, and I have shown how you can't even seperate a hypothetical example from the current situation in an area of the world. Oh, and lets not forget you can't figure out the difference between 25% and 50%.....

Simply put, you want to make this about personal insults - how "I look foolish" - over an error that I had already corrected, when you can't even handle simple math percentages? Really?

What you have done is misrepresented my statements, tried to point out an error that was already corrected, fail to comprehend the difference between hypothetical and reality, and make historical claims that are incorrect.

Errors happen. Those of us who are intellectually honest admit them and take responsibility for them. That is what I did. But for you to then come up and start acting as if I didn't - when its clear that I had edited my post well before you decided to point out the error - shows me that your more interested in playing the "gotcha" game than having a debate. Given the misrepresenting of my statements, the refusal to deal with the "pretend" scenario as was being discussed, just goes to demonstrate that really, your doing little more than tribesman would do - twist what is said and never actually provide a single source to back up your view or statements. That provides nothing to the converstion, and isn't worth my time.......

Tribesman

02-16-12, 02:35 PM

your doing little more than tribesman would do
Don't be a silly sausage.
But hey if you want to be like that.
How bad is your memory?
If there is a really huge story which echos round the world and has a huge impact which goes on and on for decades ....which then comes right back to page 1 headlines for weeks on end with arguements about Britain appeasing libyan terrorism by releasing Al-Megrahi...which then gets prime time coverage when daffy gets buggered with a bayonet and the lockerbie bomber is on TV from tripoli...

so even though the "bombing stopped daffy" has been thoroughly trashed god knows how many times before, how on earth did you still manage to get the wrong country?

Seriously its like invading a crazy secular nationalist dictators country and saying its about his islamic fundamentalism.

I mean it might be understandable,if you didn't participate in the topics on Libya or the bombing or the release...but bloody hell you even started topics on the subject:doh:

Stealhead

02-16-12, 03:35 PM

We did not have troops on the ground in Afghanistan at the time and the vast majority of the activities performed by the CIA paramilitary where performed in Pakistan leading does not necessarily mean that they are on the front line of the action .It would have been very foolish to risk such a CIA asset on a routine basis a SAD team can be comprised of anyone trained by the member of the CIAs SAD they trained others and commanded some raids from within Pakistan.

You are ignoring a very important factor about the CIAs activity in Afghanistan this little rid bit from a Wikipedia article about Operation Cyclone(the name of the CIA action):

"The program relied heavily on using the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) as an intermediary for funds distribution, passing of weapons, military training and financial support to Afghan resistance groups.[29] Along with funding from similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia, and the People's Republic of China,[30] the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. They encouraged the volunteers from the Arab states to join the Afghan resistance in its struggle against the Soviet troops based in Afghanistan.[29]"

In other words the CIA was macro managing and allowing the ISI to do most of the dirty work and even the ISI usually did not go into Afghanistan.The CIA was given money and arms the CIA then said to the ISI "here is some money and firepower have fun" the ISI used the money and distributed the arms as they saw fit of course favoring their interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

It is very hard to find reliable information about the actions of the CIA during Operation Cyclone because there are loads of internet
conspiracies surrounding it.But it is a fact that The CIA basically left most of the details up to the ISI.

It makes much more sense if you have found your self to have been incorrect to either remove the statement or make your edited correction right below or above it.Why hide it way down at the bottom honestly I did not notice somewhat hidden edit at the bottom of that post.I edit posts so many times for typos(I do not get them all) that I pay little attention to the time staps.

My format is very different from Tribesman in fact yours is much closer to his style.

I would argue that you firmly believed what you posted about Libya and then edited it to save face once you discovered that you where wrong.It does make your argument look weak (that showing force will put others in line) when in fact it clearly did not and you do now admit it did not have an effect on Libya/Qaddafi.

I really should not have used the term foolish either and I apologize for that.

The "Beginners Guide to Non-internationalism and minimal internationalism". was meant to be a harmless jest. Which actually is a typo it should have said interventionism you did originally use the term non-interventionist non means negation of a word or group of words I was meaning to point out your change of meaning from being non-interventionist to minimal.

Furthermore because I chose to exaggerate the supposed percentage of the world on the verge of being taken over by Islamic extremists does not mean that I have no understanding of math half of the world is 75%:D and you claim that I make things personal which I really did not intend to perhaps I should use the smiley emotion tags a bit more often to avoid future misunderstanding.

I did not refuse to accept your scenario I said that such a thing is very unlikely to occur and if it did would be very unlikely to require intervention by the US.If you dislike if others choose to disagree with your opinion then you should be wary of posting in the GTs then for people tend to get carried away on here and far beyond my one statement about "looking foolish"I honestly thought I should have gone back and removed that but at the time I was away from my PC and had other things to do.You then turn it make it personal after you felt that I had which is the pot calling kettle black.A person who truly had the desire not to make something personal would not re-act by then doing the same.

Honestly I sometimes throw a little "jab" into a post these jabs might be an exaggeration or something like my book title and are not intended to be personally insulting they are meant more to express my disagreement with a point of view as I said the foolish statement crossed the line by it was honestly not my intent I posted that and then headed out the door.This is a forum after it is a place to discuss things threads in which people express differing views are the most interesting.