Debate and Discussion

How will Obama's presidencey change America?
arteestx at 3:45PM, Nov. 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
kyupol
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set,” Obama said in July. “We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Obama likes to disarm the public and create a secret police force. Hmmm…
For the record, Obama is referring to Americorp and Peace Corp, not a secret police force and disarming the public. Here's the full context for this quote…

Obama
Today, AmeriCorps – our nation's network of local, state, and national service programs – has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife, Michelle, once left her job at a law firm and at City Hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. And these programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America's greatest resource – our citizens.

And that's why as president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer.

So we are going to send – we're going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment, and skill sets; you'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda, and make their own change from the bottom up.

It's amazing how far the right wing has to misconstrue someone's statements in order to make it into an issue.

Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
SpANG at 5:14PM, Nov. 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
arteestx
It's amazing how far the right wing has to misconstrue someone's statements in order to make it into an issue.
Hey, you gotta play to your strengths. Besides, it's all they have now. ;)
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
ozoneocean at 6:48PM, Nov. 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,114
joined: 1-2-2004
Well there we go, context again…
I wonder how many other out of context thing will come out like this. Reminds me of that lipstick on a pig thing people twisted into being a statement about Palin when it was about a policy or something.

Although it fit so naturally :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
rufus_edge at 9:26PM, Nov. 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 131
joined: 10-25-2007
Yeah, because we all know that kyupol was completely serious and wasn't exaggerating at all.

This is much more than Americorps and the Peace Corps as we know them. They aren't nearly as powerful or well-funded as the Army, Navy, Marines, and Airforce combined. They don't require all middle school and high school students to put in 50 hours of service every year and all college students to put in 100 hours of service every year.

Some more context:
barackobama.com
Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability

Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts:
An Obama-Biden administration will build up the capacity of each non-Pentagon agency to deploy personnel and area experts where they are needed, to help move soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines out of civilian roles.

Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC):
An Obama-Biden administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.

Rahm Emanuel in The Plan: Big Ideas for America
It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
imshard at 12:34AM, Nov. 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
The spirit of Obama's statement is admirable.
Creating new public assistance roles that would simultaneously create new jobs and volunteer opportunities while lightening the load on military personnel who are deployed to, or reserved for humanitarian roles. At the same time it would provide a new critical infrastructure for attending public needs that are currently undermanned or unattended to.

The Challenge (and reasonable/sane debate items) lies in the planning and execution of those goals.

Opponents would cite that Obama is proposing mandatory labor and time out of your personal life and the education of young people in order to further a Nationalized labor program.
Additionally Obama only mentions some volunteer positions but does not state whether or not you will have any choice in your level of participation of the main programs in general. The paranoid could see this as a bizarre mix of Soviet-style slave labor and Hitler's Nazi youth. Structionalists will argue that this defeats the purpose of free enterprise and detracts from progressive thinking into the decidedly socialist waters of political theory.
It all hinges on the demographics involved and what balance of mandatory or voluntary service the programs are introduced with. Obama has as of yet been reluctant to elucidate any explicit details on either his new or expansion civil service plans.

On a more practical note, there is the question of funding. Budgetary concerns will constitute a growing problem for all government agencies over the next few years let alone a massive new set of social programs impacting at the same time.
Though fund raising, taxes, and the economy are an entirely different part of the effect Obama will have on the country.

All that said, I don't think Obama will have so much a practical impact as a sociological one. My personal understanding of government tells me that the Congress makes the actual decisions, writes and passes the laws and approves or overrides the president's decisions as needed. Sufficiently important vetoes can be voted down by Congress, though thankfully final constitutional review falls to the Supreme court. Checks and balances win out in the end, but nevertheless my eyes will be on the Congress not Obama.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
bravo1102 at 9:36AM, Nov. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,409
joined: 1-21-2008
Seems we've down this road before; anyone remember the Works Project Administration (WPA) from the New Deal? Same thing, new name.

As far as using civilian personnel to replace mundane tasks of the military; we're already doing that wth private contractors in support roles. It stinks. Let's build up the military so it can support itself please. Everytime you use private contractors (or civilans) to support the military, the military has gotten screwed! Nah, why listen to the military. Just a bunch of dummies in uniform, we civilian management types know what's best. Can anyone say The Best and the Brightest? Took the military nearly 20 years to get over that debacle.

Sheesh I can find a bunch of model builders in a hobby shop who could run it all better. Oh right, I was in the military and saw it from the inside, what do I know?
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
arteestx at 11:34AM, Nov. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
rufus edge
Yeah, because we all know that kyupol was completely serious and wasn't exaggerating at all.
Considering the high number of conservatives making this ridiculous claim that Obama is trying to disarm America and wants a civilian security force, no it's not an exaggeration whatsoever. If someone is being ironic, then someone needs to be much clearer. According to the nutcase wing of conservatism, this claim isn't ironic or exaggerated at all.



bravo1102
As far as using civilian personnel to replace mundane tasks of the military; we're already doing that wth private contractors in support roles. It stinks….
That's not Obama's goal or point at all. What he's said in the past is that our military is the strongest and best in the world. When you need to take out a dictator, defeat an army, establish security, etc., there is no one better than our military.

But in the world today, military force alone is not enough to win over hearts and minds. To do this, we need to build schools and distribute food, we need to improve lives, etc. And our military does do some of this, but it shouldn't be the primary goal of our military. Our country doesn't have a military primarily to distribute food in poor nations. That's the kind of thing we need an army of civilians for, and it will better our national security in the long run.

If we can get people engaged in these kinds of efforts, we can do a lot of improvements here at home, allow people to work off student loans and therefore increase access to higher education, and for those doing foreign service they can help better our country's security in ways that our military can't. And I don't say that because our military is incapable or incompetent, it's just not its primary job to do some of these nation-building tasks, which in the long run will help the world and ourselves.


imshard
The Challenge (and reasonable/sane debate items) lies in the planning and execution of those goals….
On a more practical note, there is the question of funding….
No doubt, the devil is always in the details. And I'm sure there are many problematic specifics to be ironed out, compromised, etc. But I find it moronic (not you, imshard) to use a speech about civilian service to take a quote out of context and turn it into a “Obama's gonna take my guns and establish a Hitler-like civilian army.” It's paranoid, delusional, and batsh%#t crazy.




Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
bravo1102 at 6:09PM, Nov. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,409
joined: 1-21-2008
Do you really want to put on a happy face and go out to win hearts and minds and have the chance of getting your fanny blown off? It doesn't work. Putting civilian people in harm's way to win hearts and minds gets a lot of civilians killed. That's the real world. The International Red Cross/Crescent is different, it's a non-national body and that protects them when they go in. Putting in US civilians, however you plan it will result in dead kids coming home in body bags who weren't trained how to survive when the shit hit the fan. Because they are still Americans.

Soliders hate having to run around and help these types because all to often they treat the soldiers like something they'd wipe off the bottom of their shoe, because they're here to win hearts and minds and the soldier is just a cold-blooded killer.

Been there, done that, got the tee-shirts to prove it. :)

I remember JFK's best and brightest selling the same spiel. But then you're the expert and I'm the dumb-ass tanker. ;) They don't listen until after all the smoke clears and we tell them what they did wrong. Then they forget as soon as it comes around to doing it again. Thankfully I'm no longer able to collect tee-shirts like I once did, but plenty of guys I served with are doing so and I listen to the boots on the ground, not the shoes behind the podium.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 8:34PM, Nov. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,114
joined: 1-2-2004
bravo1102
As far as using civilian personnel to replace mundane tasks of the military; we're already doing that wth private contractors in support roles. It stinks. Let's build up the military so it can support itself please. Everytime you use private contractors (or civilans) to support the military, the military has gotten screwed!
As arteestx says, that's not what the Obama things about, but in terms of what the Bush Jnr administration did in Irqa; yeah, that was pretty shitty…

Using private contractors only had one benefit really: any death and injuries were easier to hide from the American populace.
Apart from that they're more expensive and not governed by the same rules so much more likely to misbehave, do very bad things and give the occupation forces a worse image. Which they do all the time.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
imshard at 11:51PM, Nov. 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
The poor laws, boys in Green, the CCC, the great society, the new deal, social security, food for oil, the To'er Tom Jones act, no child left behind, S.M.A.R.T, etc.,etc.

The list of philanthropic efforts by different governments since the dawn of the industrial age goes on and on. Sadly its a list of failures with little exception and few successes. BEcause the DEvil IS the details and its to easy to dismiss them and institute a sweeping program that does not fix the original problems and is too generalized to fit any given area under its effect.

Also I don't think the speech and programs we were discussing had anything to do with sending civilians into warzones.

I think its reasonable to assume that Obama is not going to assemble his own version of the Sturmabteilung, nor his he attempting to brainwash schoolchildren with government controlled youth programs, and he is not in fact: the anti-christ. Such wild accusations DO NOT represent the views of most Republicans, not even the most radical. Such theories are either made in jest or by a few sorrowful souls that qualify for serious psychiatric help. Let's kindly not mention them again in a serious light. I'll gladly reconsider them if I ever see something liking to evidence.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
kyupol at 3:59PM, Nov. 19, 2008
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
Is this website a joke? lol!

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

“A Lightworker – An Attuned Being with Powerful Luminosity and High-Vibration Integrity who will actually help usher in a New Way of Being”


Then, in a moment of divine intervention, he saw me, clad in my red stop-sign of a dress, back-tracked ever so slightly in his procession, grabbed my hand, and gave that brilliant smile of his. I literally said out loud to the woman next to me who witnessed my good fate, “I’ll never wash this hand again.”

NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
arteestx at 2:04PM, Nov. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
kyupol
Is this website a joke? lol!
Of course it's not a joke! He IS the Messiah who will bring worldwide peace and harmony. Right after he snaps his fingers and fixes the economic crisis, gets an agreement between Isreal and Palestine, cures cancer, eliminates all disease, and builds a machine that allows humans to tap into our inner potential and evolve to the higher form of being. He's the Barack of Ages!!

Hrmm… maybe the expectations for Obama are a *little* high.

Although I did enjoy this article.


Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
kyupol at 4:46PM, Nov. 20, 2008
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obamas-half-eat.html

lmao! So how much would his excrement sell on ebay? lol! Now THAT is holy shit. lol



But going back on topic, I think I better stop criticizing Obama and lets see whether or not this whole youth-brigade-spy-tattle-tale-squad thing is just a big joke.

Though still, I am scared of this guy and I think (hope I'm wrong) that he's gonna be worse than Bush. Because Bush didn't have the entire media establishment worshipping him. Bush was the butt of jokes and hated by 90% of the people, therefore tying up his hands to a certain extent.

But Obama… :(

Never before have I seen the media (and some of these “new age” factions) worship someone like that. Its scary.





NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
rufus_edge at 6:15PM, Nov. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 131
joined: 10-25-2007
It's amazing how far the left wing has to misconstrue someone's statements in order to make it into an issue.

Considering the high number of liberals making this ridiculous claim that Obama is the messiah, no it's not an exaggeration whatsoever. If someone is being ironic, then someone needs to be much clearer. According to the nutcase wing of liberalism, this claim isn't ironic or exaggerated at all.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
SpANG at 6:23PM, Nov. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
Or you can be like most people who know that idiots that claim Obama is the messiah are just as stupid as idiots that claim Obama is a MaRksist TERReRIST OMG!

As a side note, I think it's just awesome that Kyupol has a like-minded friend to talk to now! Yay!
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
arteestx at 9:06PM, Nov. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
kyupol
But going back on topic, I think I better stop criticizing Obama and lets see whether or not this whole youth-brigade-spy-tattle-tale-squad thing is just a big joke.
I don't know what to say to convince you otherwise. All I can say is I hope you remember this 2-4 years from now when absolutely nothing remotely like this happens.


kyupol
Bush was the butt of jokes and hated by 90% of the people, therefore tying up his hands to a certain extent.
You and I remember history very differently. I remember after 9/11 when Bush's approval rating was 90%. In fact, before mid-'05 his approval ratings were generally at or over 50%. Sure, NOW most people realize what a $%&@-up he is, but that wasn't the case for over half his presidency.


Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
ozoneocean at 12:16AM, Nov. 21, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,114
joined: 1-2-2004
arteestx
I remember after 9/11 when Bush's approval rating was 90%.
That alone is rather shameful, but not for Bush.
The revenge invasion of Afghanistan and support for it was even worse.

It's like a guy runs over your kid, so you go and kill his parents in their home and the rest of his extended family.

————-

Hopefully Obama's presidency will mark and end to the climate that makes such activities seem acceptable.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
arteestx at 8:42PM, Nov. 21, 2008
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
kyupol
Bush was the butt of jokes and hated by 90% of the people, therefore tying up his hands to a certain extent.
Ok, something else about this has been bothering me, and I've finally realized what it is. This line brings up things I'm hearing on conservative talk radio and in Republican post-election analysis; Republicans and conservatives are in a complete mode of revisionism that is absolutely incredible to me.

Bush had his hands tied during his presidency? The problem with the Republicans is that they abandoned their conservatism? Are you kidding me? From 2000 to 2008, the top executive leaders were Bush and Cheney. Trent Lott led the Senate from 2001-2003, then Bill Frist from 2003-2007. Dennis Hasert was Speaker of the House from 1999-2007, and the Majority Leader went from Dick Armey (til 2003), Tom DeLay (2003-2005), and Roy Blunt (2005-2007). These were the leaders of the Republican Party in control of the Executive and Legislative branches of govt from 2001-2006, these are the people that decided what laws were created and voted on, what policies were enacted, which people were in charge of which departments, etc.

The fact is Republicans, and conservatives specifically, got the control they wanted and got the policies they wanted. They enacted the economic policies of deregulation and lack of oversight over the market and let the free market do its thing unfettered. They enacted the foreign policy philosophy that got us into Iraq and outed a CIA agent for revenge. They had the domestic policy they wanted in FEMA, in HHS, and so forth.

And conservative are now saying Bush's hands were tied? Conservatives say that Cheney wasn't conservative enough? Tom DeLay abandoned conservatism? Seriously?

The problem is NOT that Republicans abandoned conservatism; the problem is that Republicans embraced conservatism completely, and conservatism failed miserably. Conservatism as a philosophy, whether it was free market or foreign policy or FEMA, is a complete and utter failure. You get incompetence, you get chaos, you get the worst headache imaginable.

And now that this failure is plain for everyone to see, conservatives are now trying to rewrite history. The current recession is the Obama Recession? Republicans abandoned conservative principles? Republicans were too liberal? Republicans were acting like Democrats and THAT's why they failed?

What a pile of crap.

Conservatism doesn't work. Period.

And you know what, pure liberalism isn't the answer either. We need checks and balances, a middle ground between the two. And that pragmatism is exactly what I think Obama is going to bring to the White House.

But don't give me this “Republicans abandoned conservatism” revisionism crap. “Bush's hands were tied” and “Bush wasn't able to do what he wanted.” Bush and conservatives got exactly what they wanted, and their philosophy has been and continues to be a disaster in reality.


….sorry for the rant, but the crap I'm hearing on talk radio and reading in articles in breathtaking in its assumption that the American people are THAT stupid.

Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
rufus_edge at 10:04AM, Nov. 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 131
joined: 10-25-2007
It's breathtaking to me that someone could be this stupid.
Your unfounded generalization about the right wing thinking that Obama is going to organize his own $500 billion per year gang of brownshirts was so wrong that you decided to make an unfounded generalization that Conservatism is a complete and utter failure.

The fact is, Conservatism has been very successful in the past as well as the present. Conservatism in its purest form, Reagan Conservatism, was extraordinarily successful and popular among Republicans and Democrats. There are some politicians today that I consider true Conservatives, Duncan Hunter, Sarah Palin, Tom Tancredo, and Bobby Jindal, and I think they're all extremely successful. There are some that I like that I consider to be at least moderately Conservative, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee, and they've all been successful. None of them are failures by any stretch of the imagination.

Nixon governed as a Conservative, for the most part, so he must have been mostly a failure, according to you.



Then Carter defeated Ford in a close election, 297 to 240 and 50% to 48%, and he governed as a liberal, so he must not have been a failure, according to you.



Reagan was extremely conservative, so he must have been an extremely big failure, according to you.



In fact, his conservative policies must have been so bad that his Vice President, George H.W. Bush's aspirations to become President were doomed to failure, according to you, because he promised to govern as a Conservative.



Bush lied about how he was going to lead the country, and was defeated by Clinton, running as a moderate, in an election with one additional candidate who had any chance at all of winning, H. Ross Perot. It wasn't very close in electoral votes, but it was in popular vote, 43% to 37.7%. Clinton was a very liberal President, and he defeated the moderate Bob Dole and Perot in a similar election to earn a second term. Bush ran as a Conservative and defeated Al Gore, who ran as a liberal. His policies ranged from conservative to liberal to nonsensical, and he defeated the very liberal John Kerry to earn a second term. Both elections were very close.

Then the most moderate candidate in history, John McCain, was defeated by the most liberal and least experienced candidate in history, Barack Obama, 365 to 173 and 53% to 46%.



Now let's take a look at the most conservative things George W. Bush did.

His tax cuts were based on conservative philosophies. His tax cuts were very successful.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm956.cfm
http://www.ncpa.org/prs/rel/2008/20080121.html

People consider the “war on terror” to be conservative, but I think It's just common sense (FDR did a similar thing after the attacks on Pearl Harbor). The war on terror has kept us safe from terrorists, so I think it was successful.

He passed the partial-birth abortion ban act, another conservative idea that is successful.

He appointed qualified Conservative judges John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

You may not like his conservative policies in regards to global warming, stem cell research, and drilling for oil, but I do, and those policies can't be considered failures.

I don't think Bush has been a failure overall, and I don't think he has been a Conservative overall (compare his positions to Hunter's positions).

Also, did everybody forget that the Democrats have had control of both the House and the Senate for the last two years and they haven't done jack shit.

What a pile of crap (or lack of a pile of crap, if you take the last sentence literally).
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
radarig at 5:18PM, Nov. 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 1-12-2006
Hold up. Before you call someone “breathtakingly stupid” let's consider this breathtaking load:

Rufus
Conservatism in its purest form, Reagan Conservatism

Reagan Conservatism is not “Conservatism in its purest form.” It is the form of conservatism that Americans found most politically palatable for over twenty years.

You seem apt to cherry-pick graphics favorable to your view, such as using state-result graphs when the GOP won and county graphs when the Dems won. And if we're doing that, how about the D-Shift in the 2008 Election versus the 2004?



Sense a pattern there?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:58PM
Walrus at 6:32PM, Nov. 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,159
joined: 2-18-2007
We're all going to die in the next 5-15 years, does it really matter?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:45PM
rufus_edge at 9:06PM, Nov. 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 131
joined: 10-25-2007
We're all going to die in 5 years because Israel doesn't have the guts to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

We all know that Obama got more votes than Kerry, but that doesn't have anything to do with “conservatism is always a failure” because McCain isn't very conservative at all and there was no president or vice president in this election. Obama's promises ranged from conservative to liberal to socialist. We don't all know that McCain won the majority of the counties in the country, which is the only reason why I included that map.

Ronald Reagan is the man who defines Conservatism as we know it today. I guess you could call Libertarianism “Pure Conservatism”.

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of Conservatism is Libertarianism. I think Conservatism is really a misnomer just as Liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals - if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called Conservatives today would be the Liberals and the Liberals would be the Tories. The basis of Conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what Libertarianism is.”

Duncan Hunter is the closest person we have to Reagan today. Bush and McCain are not very similar to Reagan.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
ozoneocean at 10:33PM, Nov. 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,114
joined: 1-2-2004
rufus_edge
We're all going to die in 5 years because Israel doesn't have the guts to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
lol!
This statement is quite reversed. ;)

Hopefully there will be no bombing of Iran what so ever and the idiots who want such hammfisted childishly warlike ill-thought out solutions to everything will be pushed over to the sidelines and ignored for once so they can't cause any MORE trouble like they have been for the last decade or so since they've been able to.

————
As to the definitions of “Conservatism” and liberalism“, they can really be whatever you want them to be, just the same with ”right wing“ and ”Left wing". It's generally agreed that conservatives support positions that are against change and that are for traditional values and institutions, whether those are against personal freedom or not. They also tend to be fairly nationalist, pro war, and pro-rich.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Ronson at 11:09PM, Nov. 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I love how, with the maps, Rufus uses state electoral maps for all of his Republican wins, and then shifts to county totals for the 2008 Democratic landslide.

HINT: Though square mile-wise the country is mostly Republican, populationwise it is mostly Democratic. And people vote, not land.


Not that it matters. Republicans will think whatever they need to to allow themselves to feel like victims and absolve themselves of all responsibility.

The most obvious truth to this is when they play up Nixon as if he was a good - or even great - president. He wasn't. He was a criminal. He broke the law. Not as seriously as Reagan, H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush, but a criminal nonetheless.

1. Trickle down economics is a theory for morons who don't watch when it's implemented to show that it obviously has never worked.

2. Deregulation has only short term benefits, and inevitably ends in disaster.

3. Republicans have never even attempted to shrink the goverment, but instead grows the military and the beaurocracy. Democrats do the same thing, but don't claim to want to shrink government.

4. Even the “traditional family values” Republicans pretend to care about are being revealed as non-issues and are rapidly losing their power since Republicans spent the past 8 years ignoring the issues they used to get votes for the past few decades.

But none of this matters, because ideologists don't argue rationally, only emotionally. They feel they're right and that's as far as it goes.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
ozoneocean at 12:27AM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,114
joined: 1-2-2004
Ronson
2. Deregulation has only short term benefits, and inevitably ends in disaster.
I love bush Jnr's rationalisation about the woes of the finance industry. he said "more regulation ISN'T the answer because other countries had more than the U.S. and they're suffering just as much.

Which would be fair enough if these issues had some strange global amorphous cause… But they didn't! The cause was Failure in the U.S. The weakest link in the chain. All the regulation in the world isn't going to help you if the biggest player has almost none. It's like having excellent fireproofing and living with a moat around your house, but having to live next to a giant firework factory.

More evidence of why the man is a fool. At least with him out of the presidency soon, he'll be a little more harmless. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
imshard at 2:29AM, Nov. 23, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Someone
“Ronson” Said:
2. Deregulation has only short term benefits, and inevitably ends in disaster.
I love bush Jnr's rationalisation about the woes of the finance industry. he said "more regulation ISN'T the answer because other countries had more than the U.S. and they're suffering just as much.

Which would be fair enough if these issues had some strange global amorphous cause… But they didn't! The cause was Failure in the U.S. The weakest link in the chain. All the regulation in the world isn't going to help you if the biggest player has almost none. It's like having excellent fireproofing and living with a moat around your house, but having to live next to a giant firework factory.

More evidence of why the man is a fool. At least with him out of the presidency soon, he'll be a little more harmless.

I've never understood the need to scapegoat and vilify public figures instead of accepting that there is a mess we all need to pick up and clean up ourselves. Powerful as the US presidency may be, the state of the markets is not something that any incumbent president is responsible for. Policy making aside, true recessions, and powerful economies are things built over time. the current state of the world and national economy fluctuates on a certain base. If an economic base is strong then even a large dip can be recovered from as the sheer momentum of a large infrastructure pushes it through. if a base is weak it can look strong on paper but when the chips fall it collapses like a house on a termite infested foundation. Because of the size of the US and the large number of contributing factors you would have to look 10-20 back in order to find the originating policy to explain the current state of the market. Why 10-20? because that's how long it takes for a policy to filter down and show long-term results. Us Law is like a layer-cake or the rings in a tree. Lots of piling on the old instead of repealing the faulty. Like a series of patches trying to mend a law instead of replacing it.

Translation?: If Obama is going to have anything close to an immediate effect he would have to remove decades worth of existing laws. This process does not involve flashing a smile, muttering a quick blame bush statement, and showing a couple of graphics from last week to support his claims. In fact Obama cannot do it directly. Congress has to do it. all he does is pen his approval when its all done.

Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
radarig at 6:27AM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 1-12-2006
Rufus
We're all going to die in 5 years because Israel doesn't have the guts to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

For someone opining about the virtues of Reagan Conservatism, you sound an awful lot more like a Neoconservative.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:58PM
rufus_edge at 7:33AM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 131
joined: 10-25-2007
At what point is one justified in bombing another country in self-defense?
After your entire country ceases to exist?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
ozoneocean at 7:50AM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,114
joined: 1-2-2004
rufus_edge
At what point is one justified in bombing another country in self-defense?
you mean at what point are you justified in making an unprovoked attack on someone, killing thousands of people, causing billions of dollars in damage, and then claiming “self defence”?

I suppose if Al Quiada claimed they flew those planes into the WTC because of “self defence” that would make it ok would it? :)

Self defence actually involves you defending yourself against an attack, not going out and killing and destroying wantonly because of your own fears. That cowardice and bullying.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
radarig at 8:16AM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 1-12-2006
rufus_edge
At what point is one justified in bombing another country in self-defense?
After your entire country ceases to exist?
A] Do you believe that all methods to avoid conflict have been fully realized?

B] Do you believe that Iran will accept its own destruction in order to destroy Israel?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:58PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved