Obama-3, Bush-0...

JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Lol, he's lost without his speech writers. Check out, "obama lost without teleprompter" on youtube. I wish I could post links already, only 11 posts to go!

On another, more serious note... I remember G.W.'s press conference after 9/11. He spoke an hour after it happened after he dispatched the Navy to New York in a show of support. They were still looping the crashes on CNN. He called it how it was, America was attacked in an act of terror and many Americans were killed.

In contrast, it took B.O. three days to issue a statement on the Christmas Bomber, even though it took him only 50 minutes to give the terrorist the rights and protections afforded by the American legal system. The same benefits he has given Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (self-admitted mastermind of 9/11)

Bush: 1 Obama: 0

And by the way Barack, if you're reading this, stop bowing down to Saudi kings and Japanese emperors, because it is a sign of abject subservience and you're humiliating the American people.

I dont the the criticisim over the 3 days for the underwear bomber is fair because for the show bomber bush was on vaca and it he finished his vacation before issing a statement. Think I remember it was like a week or longer
 
Zero V

Zero V

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Agreed. The concept started as far back as Carter, and Clinton gave the CRA new legs, and even when the problem was being seen in the Bush Era, instead of repealing the ****ty CRA, and tackling the heart of the banking problems, the dumb ass just threw money at it. Now Obama is taking that same path, but throwing more and more and more and more money at it... eventually we will have to stop throwing money at it, then we will be left with a dollar that is equivelent to a peso and a recession that is dragged along for years to come.
And a chock full military at the will of the federal government because there is no other way to make it today...interesting.

It is usually quite easy to get angry over this stuff...but recently I dont let it bother me anymore, I have a pretty clear opinion about what I think is coming(the working class paying for the governments mistakes coming to an abrupt end). Honestly I think in the next 10 years America will be quite a different nation all together.
 
Gizmacho

Gizmacho

New member
Awards
0
As opposed to the week it took Bush to respond to the shoe bomber? He even stayed on holiday when it happened FFS. As for the whole bowing thing you obviously get the majority of your information on politics courtesy of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Fox News if you believe such a non event was even news worthy in the first place.

Your insinuation in the above is what? That Obama is a snivelling terrorist sympathiser and is afraid of Saudi oil sheik's and Japanese Emperors? Assuming that the answer to this question is yes, I suggest you take the time to remove the big red nose and big floppy shoes you're wearing, turn off Fox News and do some actual research and investigation into politics.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who tries to assert that GW Bush is a better orator prompted or not than Barack Obama is one of two things; 1 - a rabidly one eyed republican with no regard for truth or factual integrity or 2 - high as a kite... Or both. I'd be 2000% confident that clips of Bush douching a speech will outnumber clips of Obama douching a speech by a rate of 10 - 1.

If I was going to give anyone advice on US politics I'd suggest reading and watching as much information from both sides of the fence and making up your own mind. Don't just parrot what news outlets say like it's your own opinion.
Like I said earlier in an earlier post, Barack Obama is a very charismatic speaker. His public speaking skills are much better than Bush's, so were Hitler's. That being said, for your own edification please youtube "Obama teleprompter malfunctions" and see what your anointed president looks like without a teleprompter: (insert any one of your petulant insults here).

All one needs to know about American politics can be learned by reading the US Constitution. - You can quote me on that.

I'm not making any excuses for Bush, his waiting 6 days to address the shoe bomber was an inexcusable lack of leadership for someone in his position, much like Obama putting off the Afghanistan troop buildup decision for 3 months. How quickly we forget. I'm pretty sure Bush's delay was out of pure laziness, while Obama's stemmed from a pure lack of leadership experience.

As far as culture is concerned, bowing to an emperor or king is a sign of subservience, it is their custom. Being that Barack Obama is our elected leader (however unfortunate that may be), he represents the entire U.S. when he meets with foreign heads of state. Therefore his bowing is symbolic of America's bowing down. It's sad that you would defend these humiliating gestures, though I forgive it because you clearly share Obama's ignorance and inexperience on the matter.

Now, believing the shoe bomber is a non-event is the same misguided (America is bulletproof) thinking that led our national defense policy into the dirt during the Clinton era, because events including: the 1993 WTC bombing in NY, the Riyadh bombing, the bombing of The Khobar Towers, the bombing of U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, Tanzania, and Dar es Salaam, and The USS Cole, were also "non-issues" to which Clinton took "non-action". In my opinion, by him not addressing these attacks on U.S. soil (yes, embassies and foreign military bases are U.S. soil), he gave terrorists worldwide the guts to attack us at home.

"No regard for factual integrity". You might not like what I have to say, but it's the truth. The truth is neither good nor bad, it's just the truth. It can hurt, or it can set you free, or both. It's up to you to decide which.

It is usually quite easy to get angry over this stuff...but recently I dont let it bother me anymore, I have a pretty clear opinion about what I think is coming(the working class paying for the governments mistakes coming to an abrupt end). Honestly I think in the next 10 years America will be quite a different nation all together.
I agree. I hope to see real change, and soon. I think all politicians should have 2-term limits. No more "career" politicians. We should vote out all of congress and have true transparency the next time around. If they can't stop the current government spending spree, we vote THEM out until we have someone who represents the AMERICAN PEOPLE'S interests, for a change. I know, right? That sounds so RADICAL someone should probably start calling me names in an effort to discredit me.

What the constitution describes is a government "of the people", common citizens deciding their own fates, a bottom-up philosophy where people run a "national" government. Since 1877, our government has steadily evolved into the all-encompassing leviathan we know today as the "fed"; a top-down system where the government runs the people, not the other way around.

Also, we have a system run by bipartisan elitists, where both options suck equally. You have reds on one side talking about how bad the blues are, and vice versa, but the same hands control both sides, they're called lobbyists. We have a progressive government that will soon make every waking decision for us if we let them, look at health care.
 
Mrs. Gimpy!

Mrs. Gimpy!

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
That Obama is a snivelling terrorist sympathiser and is afraid of Saudi oil sheik's and Japanese Emperors? Assuming that the answer to this question is yes, I suggest you take the time to remove the big red nose and big floppy shoes you're wearing, turn off Fox News and do some actual research and investigation into politics.
saudi and japanese leaders ---
I don't think that Gizmacho is saying that Obama fears saudi and japanese leaders, but the bowing is truly a sign of submission for another's power. While I do not agree that Obama and other American leaders should stop bowing completely (because that is interpreted as a complete sign of disrespect), I do think that as visitors to another's country americans should show respect with a small bow, not a "chest to knee" groveling type of bow. Clinton bowed, Bush bowed, and now Obama bows. Clinton got a lot of heat for his excessive bowing but in reality Obama demonstrates a much deeper bow. I know this all seems so trivial but it is so important to be aware of the kinds of messages that are sent out to the world as in how we respect them and how they should respect us.

terrorist sympathizer ----
I am not going to pretend to know too much about this topic as far as being able to pull up a zillion factoids to support this BUT i feel (though i could be entirely wrong!) that the many presidents, not just the current one, are a bit soft towards terrorists in regards to how they are treated, security, etc...

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who tries to assert that GW Bush is a better orator prompted or not than Barack Obama is one of two things; 1 - a rabidly one eyed republican with no regard for truth or factual integrity or 2 - high as a kite... Or both.
I dont believe anyone is arguing in favor of bush being a better speaker my friend :) or they truly are as "high as a kite"

You might not like what I have to say, but it's the truth. The truth is neither good nor bad, it's just the truth.
for the most part from what i have seen you do have your facts quite in line with the shoe bomber deal being a few days off but hey im sure i'll falter if i have not already on my facts being EXACTLY right.

Since 1877, our government has steadily evolved into the all-encompassing leviathan we know today as the "fed"; a top-down system where the government runs the people, not the other way around.
Hence today, we have bred a nation where personal accountability is nonexistent. Big government = :aargh4:
I think all politicians should have 2-term limits. No more "career" politicians. We should vote out all of congress
exactly. So much emphasis was place on the president having 4 year terms with the possibility of 2 terms (too much and too many if you ask me!) but yet we have people like barbara boxer, diane fienstein, and the recently passed kennedy who held their seats for decades! The senate and supreme court have both done their share of irreversible damage to the country because of their never-ending terms.

If I was going to give anyone advice on US politics I'd suggest reading and watching as much information from both sides of the fence and making up your own mind. Don't just parrot what news outlets say like it's your own opinion.
100% agreed. But people who go on any forum are hopefully open to hearing others opinions and perhaps changing their own because of the enlightenment provided by others. If one does not care to hear others opinions and only cares to hear themselves talk, than perhaps they belong in front of a mirror, not a computer or the general public. :cheers:
 
Gizmacho

Gizmacho

New member
Awards
0
terrorist sympathizer ----
...i feel (though i could be entirely wrong!) that the many presidents, not just the current one, are a bit soft towards terrorists in regards to how they are treated, security, etc...
That's my point. During WWII, plain clothed (non-uniformed) combatants were tried as spies by military tribunal, and summarily executed. A military tribunal using the Manual for Courts Martial is more apropos for trying spies and terrorists than the federal justice system which is based on case law. By their actions, these individuals have declared war on the U.S., they don't deserve the protections provided by the judicial system. And wtf? Our intel guys were only able to question the shoe bomber for 50 min? He should still be getting interrogated. Before they read him his Miranda rights, he even confessed that there are more people on the way. Now we can't even ask him who they are without his lawyer present? Can you believe it?! Why? Why would Barack do this? Doesn't he want the attacks to stop? I just can't understand this.

exactly. So much emphasis was place on the president having 4 year terms with the possibility of 2 terms (too much and too many if you ask me!) but yet we have people like barbara boxer, diane fienstein, and the recently passed kennedy who held their seats for decades! The senate and supreme court have both done their share of irreversible damage to the country because of their never-ending terms.
That's why I left California after 24 years. Unfortunately, the aforementioned senators may be doing irreversible damage to the state of California. It didn't have to be that way.
 
Vance

Vance

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Like I said earlier in an earlier post, Barack Obama is a very charismatic speaker. His public speaking skills are much better than Bush's, so were Hitler's. That being said, for your own edification please youtube "Obama teleprompter malfunctions" and see what your anointed president looks like without a teleprompter: (insert any one of your petulant insults here).

All one needs to know about American politics can be learned by reading the US Constitution. - You can quote me on that.

I'm not making any excuses for Bush, his waiting 6 days to address the shoe bomber was an inexcusable lack of leadership for someone in his position, much like Obama putting off the Afghanistan troop buildup decision for 3 months. How quickly we forget. I'm pretty sure Bush's delay was out of pure laziness, while Obama's stemmed from a pure lack of leadership experience.

As far as culture is concerned, bowing to an emperor or king is a sign of subservience, it is their custom. Being that Barack Obama is our elected leader (however unfortunate that may be), he represents the entire U.S. when he meets with foreign heads of state. Therefore his bowing is symbolic of America's bowing down. It's sad that you would defend these humiliating gestures, though I forgive it because you clearly share Obama's ignorance and inexperience on the matter.

Now, believing the shoe bomber is a non-event is the same misguided (America is bulletproof) thinking that led our national defense policy into the dirt during the Clinton era, because events including: the 1993 WTC bombing in NY, the Riyadh bombing, the bombing of The Khobar Towers, the bombing of U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, Tanzania, and Dar es Salaam, and The USS Cole, were also "non-issues" to which Clinton took "non-action". In my opinion, by him not addressing these attacks on U.S. soil (yes, embassies and foreign military bases are U.S. soil), he gave terrorists worldwide the guts to attack us at home.

"No regard for factual integrity". You might not like what I have to say, but it's the truth. The truth is neither good nor bad, it's just the truth. It can hurt, or it can set you free, or both. It's up to you to decide which.



I agree. I hope to see real change, and soon. I think all politicians should have 2-term limits. No more "career" politicians. We should vote out all of congress and have true transparency the next time around. If they can't stop the current government spending spree, we vote THEM out until we have someone who represents the AMERICAN PEOPLE'S interests, for a change. I know, right? That sounds so RADICAL someone should probably start calling me names in an effort to discredit me.

What the constitution describes is a government "of the people", common citizens deciding their own fates, a bottom-up philosophy where people run a "national" government. Since 1877, our government has steadily evolved into the all-encompassing leviathan we know today as the "fed"; a top-down system where the government runs the people, not the other way around.

Also, we have a system run by bipartisan elitists, where both options suck equally. You have reds on one side talking about how bad the blues are, and vice versa, but the same hands control both sides, they're called lobbyists. We have a progressive government that will soon make every waking decision for us if we let them, look at health care.
That's my point. During WWII, plain clothed (non-uniformed) combatants were tried as spies by military tribunal, and summarily executed. A military tribunal using the Manual for Courts Martial is more apropos for trying spies and terrorists than the federal justice system which is based on case law. By their actions, these individuals have declared war on the U.S., they don't deserve the protections provided by the judicial system. And wtf? Our intel guys were only able to question the shoe bomber for 50 min? He should still be getting interrogated. Before they read him his Miranda rights, he even confessed that there are more people on the way. Now we can't even ask him who they are without his lawyer present? Can you believe it?! Why? Why would Barack do this? Doesn't he want the attacks to stop? I just can't understand this.



That's why I left California after 24 years. Unfortunately, the aforementioned senators may be doing irreversible damage to the state of California. It didn't have to be that way.

So having read all of the above Giz I'm interested to know what your actual position is on the issue - are you saying McCain would be any better (I don't believe this argument holds any water)? Are you saying that the entire political spectrum in the US is ****ed (This is a point I would absolutely pay)?

As for the second point about how insurgents were treated in WWII the fact of the matter is that the entire war was fought differentlly in WWII. We have this misguided notion now which states that it is possible to win the hearts and minds of your enemies down the barrel of a gun - this is an entirely flawed notion in my opinion. By comparison WWII was a war of annihilation where-by cities and strong points were surrounded and either bombed into submission or starved out - with little or no regard for civilians in every case other than the fact that the nazi's abandoned Paris. The fact being that the 'kill them all and let God sort them out' philosophy is a strategy which lends itself much more readily to the assimilation of conquered people's or areas but again not without it's failures (The Warsaw uprising being an obvious example).

That said the days of 24/7 media coverage mean that the overwhelming majority of western, civilised populations will not tolerate the kind of mass slaughter that you talk about any more so than they will accept summary executions of prisoners - insurgents or political prisoners it makes no difference.

If you need an example of this you only have to look at the international view of Gitmo and the PR nightmare surrounding Abu Graib in Iraq. The view is that the US should be 'above' these kinds of actions and be seen as a much more humanitarian entity than it's enemies. Again the commonly held view is that failure to demonstrate these qualities will lead to more enemies down the track - do you disagree with this notion?

A quote which I would say is relevant to the above is;

A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy.
Aldous Huxley

I agree with your assertion that the constitution of the US calls for less government not more, I also agree that there should be far fewer career politicians - and don't even get me started on the many political dynasties that exist in Washington.

What I would say you might need to look more closely at is the "current government spending spree" and what the outcomes of this not happening would have been. The reality is that the US economy has been living on borrowed time now for a long time and in 50 years the US will no longer be the economic engine-room of the global economy. If congress had failed to bail out the major US financial institutions as it did it would've meant the collapse of the US financial system. That means no money to be loaned to businesses big and small, no money for mortgages and no infrastructure spending, ultimately unemployment explodes, tax revenues dry up and you're in the kind of financial mess that has more to do with revelations in the bible than it does with the great depression. That said if there is a failure to properly reform the US banking sector now and a failure to stop relying so heavily on the 'petro-dollar' in the next 10 years will equal extremely bad news for the US economy.

A quote which also sums up what I'm talking about here;

That's free enterprise, friends: freedom to gamble, freedom to lose. And the great thing -- the truly democratic thing about it -- is that you don't even have to be a player to lose.
Barbara Ehrenreich

I look forward to your responses. Nothing like a robust discussion. :D
 
Gizmacho

Gizmacho

New member
Awards
0
Vance - I'd quote that, but it would look ridiculous.

I think McCain would be more Bush. In light of our current situation, I don't think that's such a bad thing. The completely fubar'd part of it is that we had to vote for the lesser of two evils, getting kicked in the face or kicked in the nuts, it still sucks.

On Abu Graib, funny you mention it. The main whistle-blower on the investigation is a friend of mine who was a guard there when it all went down. One of the top 5 Marines I know. He was actually on a USMC commercial a few years back. Anyway, Abu Graib shows a complete breakdown in discipline among a few soldiers that has left an indelible black eye on the American military. I agree. I also believe that political prisoners or insurgents have rights according to the Geneva Convention. Okay, I think we're in agreement that what happened at Abu Graib is wrong! You have to be more specific about Gitmo. I'm guessing "waterboarding"? Terrorists deserve worse.

(This is off topic. I'm going to tell you a story. When I was in Iraq during my first tour, Nov. '05 - May '06 during the first elections, it was the bloodiest month in the war's history. When we captured an insurgent, and there were many who we caught planting, making, or detonating IED's, I took what was called a "money shot". That was an excruciatingly incriminating photograph of the insurgent with all of his supplies, guns, bombs, timers, detonator, etc. displayed around him. I posed one in the hole he was digging with the bomb located strategically between his legs, his AK-47 before him. When we interrogated him, things were very simple. "Either you tell me what I want to know, or I give you and this photo to the Iraqi Police." They gave us hours of information, because they knew that if we gave them to the IA's or IP's, they would be dead in three days. That's it. Three days. What we have here in the U.S. is a travesty.)

Back to the discussion, there's a difference between political prisoner and terrorist. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the shoe bomber (those to whom I was referring) are terrorists, because they used: (military definition here) the calculated use of violence (or threat thereof) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

A political prisoner is someone who is imprisoned because of his political views.

So, the U.S. should be above executing terrorists? I disagree, and I believe the heads of state of every country in the world would disagree with that statement. The Dalai lama would disagree with that.

Aldous Huxley on democracy? I'm Old School.

"A coward is much more exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit."
Thomas Jefferson

or

As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also.
Thomas Jefferson

What you said justifying the government spending spree is one-long-slippery-slope-fallacy commonly parroted by Gibbs, Biden, yada, yada, ad nauseum. Please learn to recognize them, to protect yourself from the MSM.

Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.
Thomas Jefferson

My opinion on the "spending spree" i.e. quadrupling of the national debt is:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

Basically, if "Big Auto" "fell", it would have FINALLY given them the opportunity to restructure and become profitable. Imagine that, American automakers finally retaking their places as the leaders in innovation and quality. But, unfortunately they are still saddled with as much debt as before, except GM and Chrysler are owned by the UAW. Oh well, life goes on. Maybe next time.

That's free enterprise, friends: freedom to gamble, freedom to lose. And the great thing -- the truly democratic thing about it -- is that you don't even have to be a player to lose.
Barbara Ehrenreich (not bad but like I said, I'm Old School)

“Contrary to the vulgar belief that men are motivated primarily by materialistic considerations, we now see the capitalist system being discredited and destroyed all over the world, even though this system has given men the greatest material comforts”

Ayn Rand
 
Gizmacho

Gizmacho

New member
Awards
0
Actually, after thinking about it...I don't think the Geneva Convention grants right to terrorists, just P.O.W.'s. I might be incorrect on that. I'll look into it.

Ahh, I made another factual error. Obama was giving a speech to 12-year-olds, not 9-year-olds using his illustrious teleprompter, which would make them 6th graders, not 3rd. Sorry, they looked small for 6th graders, lol.
 
Vance

Vance

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Lucky for Jefferson he didn't have to deal with a 24 hour news media and embedded journalists in a time of war. :lol:

And firstly on the current spending spree. Obama has literally nothing to do with the collapse of the US auto industry and that industry has been surviving on government subsidies forever. I absolutely agree with you that subsidising inefficeint industry is flawed economic policy and I also agree that the lobbyists for specific areas of industry have a lot to answer for in this regard - particularly agriculture and the automotive industries in the US but the majority of western nations are the same. The subsidies from the government to keep these exports competitive predatorily prices smaller developing nations out of their rightful piece of the pie in order to maintain the status quo and it will always collapse eventually.

However. The bailout of the banking sector is a different beast altogether. The fact of the matter is that Jefferson's idea of an economy and the global economy we now have could not be more different. The fact of the matter is that the fuel for the global economy for the last 30 years has been one thing and one thing alone - credit, or debt for a more accurate description.

When people buy a house or start a new business or buy a car they invariably do so through funds/debt they aquire through a financial institution. What you dealt with in this collapse is the possibility that nobody and I mean nobody in the US would be able to aquire more money than they currently had, as the collapse of the financial institutions would've effectively butt****ed the credit rating of the US economy. Hence this leading to mass unemployment not just among investment bankers but across the entire economy. That's why it was so necessary for the government bail outs to occur. The collapse itself was caused by a total disregard and in many cases the mechanisms of the economy driving banks to accept and embrace unrealistic and extremely dangerous practices in relation to who the lended to etc in order for individuals to achieve large bonus payments. Therefore the key now is that they restructure and reregulate banking practices to make sure this doesn't happen again - and that is something which will be extremely hard to do given the number of people who got extremely rich playing it the way it was.

Now back to terrorists. I personally agree with you that they deserve much worse than waterboarding. However, you look at history and precedents and you see some of the wrongful convictions that happened as a result of the troubles in Northern Ireland. You had people tortured to the point that they'd say anything to make it stop and subsequently spending much of their adult lives in prison wrongfully accused - and consider that this happened in an environment where waterboarding etc were clearly against the rules! I absolutely think that if someone is caught red handed in a terrorist act the application of the death penalty is fair enough, but again consider that in many cases you're dealing with people who were already prepared to die to carry out whatever they had planned in the first place. I believe rotting in jail in shame rather than martyred and an example for the unwashed masses behind them to follow is a more fitting punishment for such people.

That said though the fact of the matter is that for as long as we try to win the hearts and minds and ultimately reason with people who cannot or do not want to be reasoned with, more squaddies will get blown to bits, more civilians will die in car bombings and more ****heads will try to blow up planes.
 
Vance

Vance

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Actually, after thinking about it...I don't think the Geneva Convention grants right to terrorists, just P.O.W.'s. I might be incorrect on that. I'll look into it.

Ahh, I made another factual error. Obama was giving a speech to 12-year-olds, not 9-year-olds using his illustrious teleprompter, which would make them 6th graders, not 3rd. Sorry, they looked small for 6th graders, lol.
Geneva convention doesn't grant rights to insurgents bud. Only combatants who have a name, rank and serial number.

Someone get those 6th graders some gears! :lol:
 
Gizmacho

Gizmacho

New member
Awards
0
I concur.

Thanks for the fact check on the Geneva Conventions. While I was sitting in class last night, I remembered a Pfc. getting his butt chewed for calling a detainee a P.O.W. and it left me wondering.

About the global economy. What's important to know is that the federal bailout helped the banks but didn't necessarily fix America's credit rating. It's good that the banks are still there, but chances are they'd be there if they had sold their debt. We just don't know, so it's a moot point. From what I can see, most of the banks have repaid the loans and I'm just glad things are relatively stable...for now. But, as far as America's credit rating, it's fukc'd. Flat out. No buts, fukced. Anyone who invested in American "AAA" bonds up until the crash, lost. The stock market fiasco DESTROYED many economies around the world, all of which are looking for answers and solutions the same way were are here. Entire foreign economies invested in these AAA-rated bonds, and they have to find ways to repay them (which means raising taxes AND eliminating public services in many cases)? Currently in the world's eye, American investments are a scam and America is borrowing money from China to try and keep the economy moving. You're always talking about how things make America look, and I'm sure this has made us the butt of many nervous jokes.

What I haven't seen is an investigation of the Wall Street goons who repackaged and polished junk loans and gave them "AAA" (The worldwide "Gold" standard) ratings. Namely, Moody's, Standard & Poors, and Fitch are to blame. They were paid on volume, and they wanted the business to keep on coming so they cranked out genius actuarial fantasies (the housing market will increase at 5% a year forever!) to back their ratings. But, let's face it, if they admit that all three of America's rating companies are corrupt, where would that leave us? Worse off than we already are? I don't know, but I think that's what Ehrenreich was talking about.
 
votum

votum

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Vance - I'd quote that, but it would look ridiculous.

I think McCain would be more Bush. In light of our current situation, I don't think that's such a bad thing. The completely fubar'd part of it is that we had to vote for the lesser of two evils, getting kicked in the face or kicked in the nuts, it still sucks.
I voted for Huckabee. The only reason being the way he ran his campaign. Mitt romney spent 200 million. Mike Huckabee spent 20 million and beat romney. That's the kind of guy we needed, not some wet-behind-the-ears PR stunt.

On Abu Graib, funny you mention it. The main whistle-blower on the investigation is a friend of mine who was a guard there when it all went down. One of the top 5 Marines I know. He was actually on a USMC commercial a few years back. Anyway, Abu Graib shows a complete breakdown in discipline among a few soldiers that has left an indelible black eye on the American military. I agree. I also believe that political prisoners or insurgents have rights according to the Geneva Convention. Okay, I think we're in agreement that what happened at Abu Graib is wrong! You have to be more specific about Gitmo. I'm guessing "waterboarding"? Terrorists deserve worse.
I am an army interrogator. There is not one piece of official doctrine that approves of anything that happened there. This is fact.

(This is off topic. I'm going to tell you a story. When I was in Iraq during my first tour, Nov. '05 - May '06 during the first elections, it was the bloodiest month in the war's history. When we captured an insurgent, and there were many who we caught planting, making, or detonating IED's, I took what was called a "money shot". That was an excruciatingly incriminating photograph of the insurgent with all of his supplies, guns, bombs, timers, detonator, etc. displayed around him. I posed one in the hole he was digging with the bomb located strategically between his legs, his AK-47 before him. When we interrogated him, things were very simple. "Either you tell me what I want to know, or I give you and this photo to the Iraqi Police." They gave us hours of information, because they knew that if we gave them to the IA's or IP's, they would be dead in three days. That's it. Three days. What we have here in the U.S. is a travesty.)
You won't like my story then. In addition to the money shot, you now need official reports and witnesses to roll someone up. And yeah, just the threat of turning them over will start them talking. If I had it my way, to be honest, I'd much prefer to kill them on the spot. It deters much more than putting someone in jail for 30 days, affording them all the benefits of a U.S. Soldier, and then releasing them because they never talked, even though you saw them shoot your buddy. The way we are running things in Iraq sickens me. I'm at a strategic level right now, I see the bull**** generals spend their time doing. It's gross. If they brought the decision making a few echelons lower, I guarantee we'd be done by now.

Back to the discussion, there's a difference between political prisoner and terrorist. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the shoe bomber (those to whom I was referring) are terrorists, because they used: (military definition here) the calculated use of violence (or threat thereof) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
And therefore have no rights.

A political prisoner is someone who is imprisoned because of his political views.

So, the U.S. should be above executing terrorists? I disagree, and I believe the heads of state of every country in the world would disagree with that statement. The Dalai lama would disagree with that.

Aldous Huxley on democracy? I'm Old School.

"A coward is much more exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit."
Thomas Jefferson

or

As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also.
Thomas Jefferson
Terrorists are not people. Hypothetical: Guys breaks into your house, ties you up, rapes your wife, locks you inside, releases you, and stands outside the window.

Are you going to get up, look at the carnage around you, and say, "hey man, no worries, it wasn't your fault" ?

No, you are going to jump out of bed the second you hear someone break into your house and go for the nearest weapon, and in my case, I live in WA state, where Castle Law applies, if someone breaks into my house, I will kill them, I don't care if they were stealing a TV or a fork, they will be shot dead, and when the cops come, they will ask me what happened, I will tell them, and they will clean up the mess and leave. Castle Law and gun control is why I will live in WA my whole life.

What you said justifying the government spending spree is one-long-slippery-slope-fallacy commonly parroted by Gibbs, Biden, yada, yada, ad nauseum. Please learn to recognize them, to protect yourself from the MSM.

Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.
Thomas Jefferson

My opinion on the "spending spree" i.e. quadrupling of the national debt is:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

Basically, if "Big Auto" "fell", it would have FINALLY given them the opportunity to restructure and become profitable. Imagine that, American automakers finally retaking their places as the leaders in innovation and quality. But, unfortunately they are still saddled with as much debt as before, except GM and Chrysler are owned by the UAW. Oh well, life goes on. Maybe next time.

That's free enterprise, friends: freedom to gamble, freedom to lose. And the great thing -- the truly democratic thing about it -- is that you don't even have to be a player to lose.
Barbara Ehrenreich (not bad but like I said, I'm Old School)

“Contrary to the vulgar belief that men are motivated primarily by materialistic considerations, we now see the capitalist system being discredited and destroyed all over the world, even though this system has given men the greatest material comforts”

Ayn Rand

Don't even get me started on economics. Our fearless leaders economic policy is the most backwoods piece of crap I have EVER seen. I'm in Iraq right now, you want to know what I am driving? 2009 Ford Explorer with power everything. You want to know where it came from? Some Chinese trading company contracted by the US. You want to know how much we pay for them? I have no clue, but considering the fact the junkyard is full of 2009 vehicles with 25-30k miles on them, I would bet we paid an overpriced lease, + the purchase costs of the vehicle. I eat a chicken breast and some rice or noodles several times a day. Every time I eat I scan my ID card. Guess what a meal costs the US? 20 dollars or so every time I swipe that card. My base has 2 chow halls. One is getting shut down soon, despite the fact that BOTH have people turned away at the doors for being at capacity inside during the day. Whats that? That's the contractors who own the chow halls deciding they want to make more money. You know how they plan to offset that? Make 600 to go meals per day. I have 6 people in my department. I am required to run 24 hour operations. I have workd 13+ hours per day for 125 days now, without a day off. My first day off will be when I go home, because I do not get R&R because the date I chose for leave happens to be the date I am getting sent home a month early (I can't choose an earlier date, because we don't have the manpower to have more than one gone at a time) You know what my morale is like? I'll tell you I probably won't volunteer for another deployment ever again.

Trillion dollar spending plan that was supposed to jump start the economy? Clearly that didn't work.
Trillion dollar healthcare plan that doesn't really change anything?
-Well, a few more people are required to pay for healthcare now.
-But this healthcare will NEVER WORK unless it is public HC. Leaving private corps. in charge of it = failure. You can't force healthcare on your country and not enforce a pricing standard. The HC companies are free to charge what they want, which is the ONLY reason our healthcare failed in the first place, because pricing is out of hand.

I'm all for socialism, go for it, if you think it will work Mr. O, then do it. But I think all of us know the saying, "Don't ever do anything half-assed" which comes from everyy father in existence. The Gov owns some banks, and some auto-makers. They control who has healthcare. If you are going to make us a socialist economy, then do it right, redistribute wealth, take control of all industry, control everything. Oh right, that won't work, because you would have rebellion. So instead lets try and do it slow, so we cripple our country, and then when it's in its death throes, we can change, and spend the next 200 years making it good again. Don't think so. Sorry for the huge rant guys, but being a soldier, and being an intelligent human being, and being the most patriotic person I know, Obama just makes me want to cry sometimes, and that people actually bought his crap makes me want to move to Canada.
 

Similar threads


Top