|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 06 2014 04:29 itsjustatank wrote:I can no longer say Obama has no grand strategy, because he lays it out plainly now. Show nested quote +According to multiple reliable sources, on Air Force One during President Barack Obama's recent Asia trip, he spent some time talking with his traveling press corps about his approach to foreign policy. He was defensive and, by one account, "fuming." He felt that the criticism of his approach was unfair. He had clear ideas about how to manage America's global interests. In his own words, they centered on a single concept: "Don't do stupid shit."
In fact, after making this point, he reportedly stood up, headed forward toward his own cabin on the plane, and then stopped. He turned back to the gathered reporters, and, much like an elementary school teacher hammering rote learning into students, he said, "So what is my foreign policy?" The reporters, in unison, then said, "Don't do stupid shit."
How far we have come from the audacity of hope; yes, we can; the soaring expectations framed by the brilliant oratory of the president's Cairo speech on relations with the Muslim world; his Prague speech on eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide; and his Oslo speech when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, "don't do stupid shit" is a comedown even from his expectation-lowering remarks in the Philippines on that same Asia trip in which he limned his vision for a foreign policy that consisted mostly of "singles" and "doubles."
What's more, this aromatic, distilled essence of the Obama doctrine was not, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, offered up in the heat of the moment. It was not a one-time manifestation of temper from the famously cool commander in chief. Last week, in a private meeting with foreign-policy columnists, he reportedly used the exact same formulation again. Mike Allen later observed in Politico's Playbook that the White House was consciously selling the idea to the media as if it were the kind of elevating notion that would lift the president's foreign policy out of the reputational ditch in which it has recently found itself. The author puts it even better than I can further in the article. Show nested quote +Announcing the red line in Syria? Definitely stupid shit; he didn't have to say anything and shouldn't have if he didn't mean to follow through. Letting it be crossed 12 times before acting? Stupid shit. Announcing a plan to take moderate action and then withdrawing it afterward? Also stupid. Announcing support for Syrian moderates and not giving it in a timely or adequate fashion? Same. Entering Libya without a long-term plan and letting it fall into chaos immediately after the U.S. departure? Given all we know from every other intervention the United States has ever been involved with overseas, ditto. Overly focusing on core al Qaeda as terrorist franchises spread around the world as never before? More of same, mainly because it involved willful self-delusion and valuing a political message over the ground truth. Being so indecisive on Egypt that the United States had two policies at once -- one in the State Department and one in the White House? Appointing ambassadors without the credentials to do the job only because they donated money? Taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin into action with laughable sanctions? Yes, yes, yes. In each case, not only should we have known better, but there were actually people in the administration who did know better and were ignored.
To give the president and his team the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was doing all these things that helped shape the new doctrine. Perhaps it takes time to learn stupid. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/04/obama_dont_do_stupid_shit_foreign_policy_bowe_bergdahlI cannot wait until the next president is around, whoever he (or probably she) is, because in the grand order of Presidents of the United States I don't think we can get much worse in terms of rudderless arbitrary asininity than what we have today. When replying, keep in mind, this is not a knee-jerk reaction to Bergdahl. This is about the course and conduct of grand strategy in American foreign policy and our lack of any such credible strategy for the past near decade.
Not that I disagree on the idea that Obama's foreign policy has been anything but a wishy washy heap of nothing, it's just that as a foreigner I much prefer a wishy washy heap of nothing to the blind militaristic crashing and thrashing that was his predecessor.
At least, if you're going to criticize Obama, recognize that in the long run he has done less harm to US policies than Bush.
|
On June 05 2014 22:44 xDaunt wrote:
What exactly is so hard to understand about the fact that Obama broke the law in this particular prisoner swap, which appears to be an incredibly stupid one in the first place? Comparing this to other prisoner releases is irrelevant.
When do impeachment proceedings start?
|
On June 06 2014 08:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 04:29 itsjustatank wrote:I can no longer say Obama has no grand strategy, because he lays it out plainly now. According to multiple reliable sources, on Air Force One during President Barack Obama's recent Asia trip, he spent some time talking with his traveling press corps about his approach to foreign policy. He was defensive and, by one account, "fuming." He felt that the criticism of his approach was unfair. He had clear ideas about how to manage America's global interests. In his own words, they centered on a single concept: "Don't do stupid shit."
In fact, after making this point, he reportedly stood up, headed forward toward his own cabin on the plane, and then stopped. He turned back to the gathered reporters, and, much like an elementary school teacher hammering rote learning into students, he said, "So what is my foreign policy?" The reporters, in unison, then said, "Don't do stupid shit."
How far we have come from the audacity of hope; yes, we can; the soaring expectations framed by the brilliant oratory of the president's Cairo speech on relations with the Muslim world; his Prague speech on eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide; and his Oslo speech when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, "don't do stupid shit" is a comedown even from his expectation-lowering remarks in the Philippines on that same Asia trip in which he limned his vision for a foreign policy that consisted mostly of "singles" and "doubles."
What's more, this aromatic, distilled essence of the Obama doctrine was not, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, offered up in the heat of the moment. It was not a one-time manifestation of temper from the famously cool commander in chief. Last week, in a private meeting with foreign-policy columnists, he reportedly used the exact same formulation again. Mike Allen later observed in Politico's Playbook that the White House was consciously selling the idea to the media as if it were the kind of elevating notion that would lift the president's foreign policy out of the reputational ditch in which it has recently found itself. The author puts it even better than I can further in the article. Announcing the red line in Syria? Definitely stupid shit; he didn't have to say anything and shouldn't have if he didn't mean to follow through. Letting it be crossed 12 times before acting? Stupid shit. Announcing a plan to take moderate action and then withdrawing it afterward? Also stupid. Announcing support for Syrian moderates and not giving it in a timely or adequate fashion? Same. Entering Libya without a long-term plan and letting it fall into chaos immediately after the U.S. departure? Given all we know from every other intervention the United States has ever been involved with overseas, ditto. Overly focusing on core al Qaeda as terrorist franchises spread around the world as never before? More of same, mainly because it involved willful self-delusion and valuing a political message over the ground truth. Being so indecisive on Egypt that the United States had two policies at once -- one in the State Department and one in the White House? Appointing ambassadors without the credentials to do the job only because they donated money? Taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin into action with laughable sanctions? Yes, yes, yes. In each case, not only should we have known better, but there were actually people in the administration who did know better and were ignored.
To give the president and his team the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was doing all these things that helped shape the new doctrine. Perhaps it takes time to learn stupid. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/04/obama_dont_do_stupid_shit_foreign_policy_bowe_bergdahlI cannot wait until the next president is around, whoever he (or probably she) is, because in the grand order of Presidents of the United States I don't think we can get much worse in terms of rudderless arbitrary asininity than what we have today. When replying, keep in mind, this is not a knee-jerk reaction to Bergdahl. This is about the course and conduct of grand strategy in American foreign policy and our lack of any such credible strategy for the past near decade. Not that I disagree on the idea that Obama's foreign policy has been anything but a wishy washy heap of nothing, it's just that as a foreigner I much prefer a wishy washy heap of nothing to the blind militaristic crashing and thrashing that was his predecessor. At least, if you're going to criticize Obama, recognize that in the long run he has done less harm to US policies than Bush.
People state that, yet have no proof, nor do they cite anything. Nor do they even acknowledge that many policies that bush put in place that bush gets criticized for, Obama has kept and not even tried to get rid of or change.
|
On June 06 2014 08:36 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 08:14 Acrofales wrote:On June 06 2014 04:29 itsjustatank wrote:I can no longer say Obama has no grand strategy, because he lays it out plainly now. According to multiple reliable sources, on Air Force One during President Barack Obama's recent Asia trip, he spent some time talking with his traveling press corps about his approach to foreign policy. He was defensive and, by one account, "fuming." He felt that the criticism of his approach was unfair. He had clear ideas about how to manage America's global interests. In his own words, they centered on a single concept: "Don't do stupid shit."
In fact, after making this point, he reportedly stood up, headed forward toward his own cabin on the plane, and then stopped. He turned back to the gathered reporters, and, much like an elementary school teacher hammering rote learning into students, he said, "So what is my foreign policy?" The reporters, in unison, then said, "Don't do stupid shit."
How far we have come from the audacity of hope; yes, we can; the soaring expectations framed by the brilliant oratory of the president's Cairo speech on relations with the Muslim world; his Prague speech on eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide; and his Oslo speech when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, "don't do stupid shit" is a comedown even from his expectation-lowering remarks in the Philippines on that same Asia trip in which he limned his vision for a foreign policy that consisted mostly of "singles" and "doubles."
What's more, this aromatic, distilled essence of the Obama doctrine was not, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, offered up in the heat of the moment. It was not a one-time manifestation of temper from the famously cool commander in chief. Last week, in a private meeting with foreign-policy columnists, he reportedly used the exact same formulation again. Mike Allen later observed in Politico's Playbook that the White House was consciously selling the idea to the media as if it were the kind of elevating notion that would lift the president's foreign policy out of the reputational ditch in which it has recently found itself. The author puts it even better than I can further in the article. Announcing the red line in Syria? Definitely stupid shit; he didn't have to say anything and shouldn't have if he didn't mean to follow through. Letting it be crossed 12 times before acting? Stupid shit. Announcing a plan to take moderate action and then withdrawing it afterward? Also stupid. Announcing support for Syrian moderates and not giving it in a timely or adequate fashion? Same. Entering Libya without a long-term plan and letting it fall into chaos immediately after the U.S. departure? Given all we know from every other intervention the United States has ever been involved with overseas, ditto. Overly focusing on core al Qaeda as terrorist franchises spread around the world as never before? More of same, mainly because it involved willful self-delusion and valuing a political message over the ground truth. Being so indecisive on Egypt that the United States had two policies at once -- one in the State Department and one in the White House? Appointing ambassadors without the credentials to do the job only because they donated money? Taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin into action with laughable sanctions? Yes, yes, yes. In each case, not only should we have known better, but there were actually people in the administration who did know better and were ignored.
To give the president and his team the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was doing all these things that helped shape the new doctrine. Perhaps it takes time to learn stupid. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/04/obama_dont_do_stupid_shit_foreign_policy_bowe_bergdahlI cannot wait until the next president is around, whoever he (or probably she) is, because in the grand order of Presidents of the United States I don't think we can get much worse in terms of rudderless arbitrary asininity than what we have today. When replying, keep in mind, this is not a knee-jerk reaction to Bergdahl. This is about the course and conduct of grand strategy in American foreign policy and our lack of any such credible strategy for the past near decade. Not that I disagree on the idea that Obama's foreign policy has been anything but a wishy washy heap of nothing, it's just that as a foreigner I much prefer a wishy washy heap of nothing to the blind militaristic crashing and thrashing that was his predecessor. At least, if you're going to criticize Obama, recognize that in the long run he has done less harm to US policies than Bush. People state that, yet have no proof, nor do they cite anything. Nor do they even acknowledge that many policies that bush put in place that bush gets criticized for, Obama has kept and not even tried to get rid of or change.
I offered exactly as much proof as itsjustatank did for his statement that Obama was the worst president ever in this respect.
To clarify: it's an opinion. Feel free to disagree. But at least Obama doesn't portray the image to the rest of the world that he wants to be their king, or use retarded rhetoric about the axis of evil and that if you're not with the US you're against.
|
On June 06 2014 08:34 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 22:44 xDaunt wrote:
What exactly is so hard to understand about the fact that Obama broke the law in this particular prisoner swap, which appears to be an incredibly stupid one in the first place? Comparing this to other prisoner releases is irrelevant. When do impeachment proceedings start? If there ever was a popular will for that to occur, it would've started long long ago. As it stands, it's not there and may never be there. There's no unified opposition, no leader willing to take that step. If there's further offenses that touch a deeper vein beyond a "bad decision" or "bad presidency," then there's the slim chance that enough popular support for the action can be leveled at Congress.
|
Call up Ted Cruz. He's just crazy enough to do it.
|
On June 06 2014 08:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 08:34 SnipedSoul wrote:On June 05 2014 22:44 xDaunt wrote:
What exactly is so hard to understand about the fact that Obama broke the law in this particular prisoner swap, which appears to be an incredibly stupid one in the first place? Comparing this to other prisoner releases is irrelevant. When do impeachment proceedings start? If there ever was a popular will for that to occur, it would've started long long ago. As it stands, it's not there and may never be there. There's no unified opposition, no leader willing to take that step. If there's further offenses that touch a deeper vein beyond a "bad decision" or "bad presidency," then there's the slim chance that enough popular support for the action can be leveled at Congress.
But he apparently broke the law. How is impeachment not just a slam dunk if the law breaking is as obvious as so many people are claiming? There's no cover up, all the evidence is right there in the open.
Don't tell me this is just another situation where conservatives are going to whine and moan about the president without taking any action!
|
On June 06 2014 08:36 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 08:14 Acrofales wrote:On June 06 2014 04:29 itsjustatank wrote:I can no longer say Obama has no grand strategy, because he lays it out plainly now. According to multiple reliable sources, on Air Force One during President Barack Obama's recent Asia trip, he spent some time talking with his traveling press corps about his approach to foreign policy. He was defensive and, by one account, "fuming." He felt that the criticism of his approach was unfair. He had clear ideas about how to manage America's global interests. In his own words, they centered on a single concept: "Don't do stupid shit."
In fact, after making this point, he reportedly stood up, headed forward toward his own cabin on the plane, and then stopped. He turned back to the gathered reporters, and, much like an elementary school teacher hammering rote learning into students, he said, "So what is my foreign policy?" The reporters, in unison, then said, "Don't do stupid shit."
How far we have come from the audacity of hope; yes, we can; the soaring expectations framed by the brilliant oratory of the president's Cairo speech on relations with the Muslim world; his Prague speech on eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide; and his Oslo speech when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, "don't do stupid shit" is a comedown even from his expectation-lowering remarks in the Philippines on that same Asia trip in which he limned his vision for a foreign policy that consisted mostly of "singles" and "doubles."
What's more, this aromatic, distilled essence of the Obama doctrine was not, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, offered up in the heat of the moment. It was not a one-time manifestation of temper from the famously cool commander in chief. Last week, in a private meeting with foreign-policy columnists, he reportedly used the exact same formulation again. Mike Allen later observed in Politico's Playbook that the White House was consciously selling the idea to the media as if it were the kind of elevating notion that would lift the president's foreign policy out of the reputational ditch in which it has recently found itself. The author puts it even better than I can further in the article. Announcing the red line in Syria? Definitely stupid shit; he didn't have to say anything and shouldn't have if he didn't mean to follow through. Letting it be crossed 12 times before acting? Stupid shit. Announcing a plan to take moderate action and then withdrawing it afterward? Also stupid. Announcing support for Syrian moderates and not giving it in a timely or adequate fashion? Same. Entering Libya without a long-term plan and letting it fall into chaos immediately after the U.S. departure? Given all we know from every other intervention the United States has ever been involved with overseas, ditto. Overly focusing on core al Qaeda as terrorist franchises spread around the world as never before? More of same, mainly because it involved willful self-delusion and valuing a political message over the ground truth. Being so indecisive on Egypt that the United States had two policies at once -- one in the State Department and one in the White House? Appointing ambassadors without the credentials to do the job only because they donated money? Taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin into action with laughable sanctions? Yes, yes, yes. In each case, not only should we have known better, but there were actually people in the administration who did know better and were ignored.
To give the president and his team the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was doing all these things that helped shape the new doctrine. Perhaps it takes time to learn stupid. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/04/obama_dont_do_stupid_shit_foreign_policy_bowe_bergdahlI cannot wait until the next president is around, whoever he (or probably she) is, because in the grand order of Presidents of the United States I don't think we can get much worse in terms of rudderless arbitrary asininity than what we have today. When replying, keep in mind, this is not a knee-jerk reaction to Bergdahl. This is about the course and conduct of grand strategy in American foreign policy and our lack of any such credible strategy for the past near decade. Not that I disagree on the idea that Obama's foreign policy has been anything but a wishy washy heap of nothing, it's just that as a foreigner I much prefer a wishy washy heap of nothing to the blind militaristic crashing and thrashing that was his predecessor. At least, if you're going to criticize Obama, recognize that in the long run he has done less harm to US policies than Bush. People state that, yet have no proof, nor do they cite anything. Nor do they even acknowledge that many policies that bush put in place that bush gets criticized for, Obama has kept and not even tried to get rid of or change.
This administration has not yet invaded and occupied a country on false pretenses and caused the deaths of 100k-600k people. That is, admittedly, a pretty low bar. But that's the one that was set by the previous administration.
|
On June 06 2014 01:24 Sermokala wrote:
If there is a way you can make more money as a corporation by hiring a certain type of staff and you don't you're providing a disservice to your investors and workers.
You can't look at them as if they're anything more then a dog chasing cars (where cars are profit) They don't know what they would do if they actualy caught one but they just do.
Maximizing shareholder value is just another one of the dumb conceits that came with neoliberalization. Even Jack Welch, the putative "father" of the idea that maximizing quarterly profits and share prices was the most important thing for a corporation to do, has renounced his former views. This isn't about dogs chasing cars, this is about businessman extracting wealth from society at large for personal gain.
|
If this guy has an interesting story he'll probably get his own thread too...
By KIRO 7 STAFF
Quick Facts:
-At least six people shot at Seattle Pacific University. (1 dead)
-At least one suspect in custody. Police initially said two.
School is about 10 min. from downtown Seattle with about 4,000 students.
-This is the first Seattle school shooting since April 2007. (7 whole years since our last school shooting...In Seattle anyway. was Feb 2012 for the state)
-At least six people were shot Thursday afternoon at Seattle Pacific University in Seattle and police have at least one person in custody.
-The shooting happened about 3:30 p.m. in Otto Miller Hall, 3rd Avenue West and West Nickerson Street. The campus was on lockdown and traffic around the school was blocked.
-It was not immediately clear if one of the six wonded was a suspect. The people shot were taken to Harborview Medical Center.
Police initially said there was a second suspect in custody, but later said there was only one. KIRO 7 reporter Gary Horcher also was told a second person was arrested.
Police said they were looking for a white man with a long-sleeved blue shirt with long vertical stripes. Police said he's armed with a handgun.
Medic units lined up multiple stretchers outside the school. The university posted online that "the campus is in lockdown due to a shooting at Otto Miller Hall." The hall has math and science classes.
“Right away it was like my heart had sunk because it is such a safe place and close, tight knit community," SPU senior Nate Johnson told KIRO 7. "I have a lot of friends who are science majors and engineering majors who would have been in Otto Miller, a lot of friends in the athletic building, which is just across the street. Right away there were specific people in my mind that I was worried about so I came down here as soon as I could, as soon as I thought it would be safe, to find out as much as I could.”
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/shooting-seattle-pacific-university/ngFbf/
|
On June 06 2014 08:56 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 08:36 hunts wrote:On June 06 2014 08:14 Acrofales wrote:On June 06 2014 04:29 itsjustatank wrote:I can no longer say Obama has no grand strategy, because he lays it out plainly now. According to multiple reliable sources, on Air Force One during President Barack Obama's recent Asia trip, he spent some time talking with his traveling press corps about his approach to foreign policy. He was defensive and, by one account, "fuming." He felt that the criticism of his approach was unfair. He had clear ideas about how to manage America's global interests. In his own words, they centered on a single concept: "Don't do stupid shit."
In fact, after making this point, he reportedly stood up, headed forward toward his own cabin on the plane, and then stopped. He turned back to the gathered reporters, and, much like an elementary school teacher hammering rote learning into students, he said, "So what is my foreign policy?" The reporters, in unison, then said, "Don't do stupid shit."
How far we have come from the audacity of hope; yes, we can; the soaring expectations framed by the brilliant oratory of the president's Cairo speech on relations with the Muslim world; his Prague speech on eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide; and his Oslo speech when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, "don't do stupid shit" is a comedown even from his expectation-lowering remarks in the Philippines on that same Asia trip in which he limned his vision for a foreign policy that consisted mostly of "singles" and "doubles."
What's more, this aromatic, distilled essence of the Obama doctrine was not, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, offered up in the heat of the moment. It was not a one-time manifestation of temper from the famously cool commander in chief. Last week, in a private meeting with foreign-policy columnists, he reportedly used the exact same formulation again. Mike Allen later observed in Politico's Playbook that the White House was consciously selling the idea to the media as if it were the kind of elevating notion that would lift the president's foreign policy out of the reputational ditch in which it has recently found itself. The author puts it even better than I can further in the article. Announcing the red line in Syria? Definitely stupid shit; he didn't have to say anything and shouldn't have if he didn't mean to follow through. Letting it be crossed 12 times before acting? Stupid shit. Announcing a plan to take moderate action and then withdrawing it afterward? Also stupid. Announcing support for Syrian moderates and not giving it in a timely or adequate fashion? Same. Entering Libya without a long-term plan and letting it fall into chaos immediately after the U.S. departure? Given all we know from every other intervention the United States has ever been involved with overseas, ditto. Overly focusing on core al Qaeda as terrorist franchises spread around the world as never before? More of same, mainly because it involved willful self-delusion and valuing a political message over the ground truth. Being so indecisive on Egypt that the United States had two policies at once -- one in the State Department and one in the White House? Appointing ambassadors without the credentials to do the job only because they donated money? Taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin into action with laughable sanctions? Yes, yes, yes. In each case, not only should we have known better, but there were actually people in the administration who did know better and were ignored.
To give the president and his team the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was doing all these things that helped shape the new doctrine. Perhaps it takes time to learn stupid. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/04/obama_dont_do_stupid_shit_foreign_policy_bowe_bergdahlI cannot wait until the next president is around, whoever he (or probably she) is, because in the grand order of Presidents of the United States I don't think we can get much worse in terms of rudderless arbitrary asininity than what we have today. When replying, keep in mind, this is not a knee-jerk reaction to Bergdahl. This is about the course and conduct of grand strategy in American foreign policy and our lack of any such credible strategy for the past near decade. Not that I disagree on the idea that Obama's foreign policy has been anything but a wishy washy heap of nothing, it's just that as a foreigner I much prefer a wishy washy heap of nothing to the blind militaristic crashing and thrashing that was his predecessor. At least, if you're going to criticize Obama, recognize that in the long run he has done less harm to US policies than Bush. People state that, yet have no proof, nor do they cite anything. Nor do they even acknowledge that many policies that bush put in place that bush gets criticized for, Obama has kept and not even tried to get rid of or change. This administration has not yet invaded and occupied a country on false pretenses and caused the deaths of 100k-600k people. That is, admittedly, a pretty low bar. But that's the one that was set by the previous administration.
Yeah, I find it amusing that people never talk about this in the context of the deficit. How much did the war in Iraq cost in the end? I can't imagine that the useless war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives came cheap.....
|
On June 06 2014 08:54 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 08:47 Danglars wrote:On June 06 2014 08:34 SnipedSoul wrote:On June 05 2014 22:44 xDaunt wrote:
What exactly is so hard to understand about the fact that Obama broke the law in this particular prisoner swap, which appears to be an incredibly stupid one in the first place? Comparing this to other prisoner releases is irrelevant. When do impeachment proceedings start? If there ever was a popular will for that to occur, it would've started long long ago. As it stands, it's not there and may never be there. There's no unified opposition, no leader willing to take that step. If there's further offenses that touch a deeper vein beyond a "bad decision" or "bad presidency," then there's the slim chance that enough popular support for the action can be leveled at Congress. But he apparently broke the law. How is impeachment not just a slam dunk if the law breaking is as obvious as so many people are claiming? There's no cover up, all the evidence is right there in the open. Don't tell me this is just another situation where conservatives are going to whine and moan about the president without taking any action!
There isn't a conservative leader, or any leader, in the House. Your points would apply in a normal case of a citizen breaking a law and getting throw in jail. In the case of the President, it's more a popularity contest than something cut-and-dried that would apply to us plebes.
Conservatives must first win primaries and obtain seats of power to do more than just pressure their party (and to liberal ears, this will sound a lot like whining and moaning) to act against their default inclinations.
The presence of grounds for impeachment is a very different thing from going through and actually impeaching the sucker. You can read a whole book about it if you want. Honestly, who cares about breaking the law if nobody's going call you on it?
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/21/usa-fed-employment-idUSL1N0O71BB20140521
NY Fed report indicates that middle-skill jobs are still failing to make a recovery since 2007. Job growth is confined to the top percentiles. Commensurate increase in income equality seems obvious.
At the end of 2013, middle-skill jobs made up 49 percent of all U.S. jobs, down from 52 percent in 2007. This three-point drop is equivalent to five million jobs at this level which have disappeared, according to Abel.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101707665
Only the top 1% of the housing is making a real recovery. There are indications that excess capital is driving the modest "recovery" overall by pumping up prices in the top 1% as the stock market starts to stagnate.
"The stock market had a record year and now it's begun to plateau, and so you see people moving their money out of the equity market and into the housing market," said Kelman.
Read More Housing starts surge, yes, but mostly for apartments
Compare this growth to the rest of the market, the other 99 percent, and the divergence between haves and have-nots is striking. Sales of the top 1 percent in San Jose are up 91 percent, while in the rest of the market sales are down over 7 percent. Even in the boom-to-bust markets that saw the biggest fall during the housing crash, the disparity is wide. Sales of Phoenix's priciest homes are up 24 percent, while the rest of the market is down nearly 16 percent.
|
On June 06 2014 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:If this guy has an interesting story he'll probably get his own thread too... Show nested quote +By KIRO 7 STAFF
Quick Facts:
-At least six people shot at Seattle Pacific University. (1 dead)
-At least one suspect in custody. Police initially said two.
School is about 10 min. from downtown Seattle with about 4,000 students.
-This is the first Seattle school shooting since April 2007. (7 whole years since our last school shooting...In Seattle anyway. was Feb 2012 for the state)
-At least six people were shot Thursday afternoon at Seattle Pacific University in Seattle and police have at least one person in custody.
-The shooting happened about 3:30 p.m. in Otto Miller Hall, 3rd Avenue West and West Nickerson Street. The campus was on lockdown and traffic around the school was blocked.
-It was not immediately clear if one of the six wonded was a suspect. The people shot were taken to Harborview Medical Center.
Police initially said there was a second suspect in custody, but later said there was only one. KIRO 7 reporter Gary Horcher also was told a second person was arrested.
Police said they were looking for a white man with a long-sleeved blue shirt with long vertical stripes. Police said he's armed with a handgun.
Medic units lined up multiple stretchers outside the school. The university posted online that "the campus is in lockdown due to a shooting at Otto Miller Hall." The hall has math and science classes.
“Right away it was like my heart had sunk because it is such a safe place and close, tight knit community," SPU senior Nate Johnson told KIRO 7. "I have a lot of friends who are science majors and engineering majors who would have been in Otto Miller, a lot of friends in the athletic building, which is just across the street. Right away there were specific people in my mind that I was worried about so I came down here as soon as I could, as soon as I thought it would be safe, to find out as much as I could.” http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/shooting-seattle-pacific-university/ngFbf/
Damn, that's like maybe 10 minutes away from where my weekday job is.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
On June 06 2014 08:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 04:29 itsjustatank wrote:I can no longer say Obama has no grand strategy, because he lays it out plainly now. According to multiple reliable sources, on Air Force One during President Barack Obama's recent Asia trip, he spent some time talking with his traveling press corps about his approach to foreign policy. He was defensive and, by one account, "fuming." He felt that the criticism of his approach was unfair. He had clear ideas about how to manage America's global interests. In his own words, they centered on a single concept: "Don't do stupid shit."
In fact, after making this point, he reportedly stood up, headed forward toward his own cabin on the plane, and then stopped. He turned back to the gathered reporters, and, much like an elementary school teacher hammering rote learning into students, he said, "So what is my foreign policy?" The reporters, in unison, then said, "Don't do stupid shit."
How far we have come from the audacity of hope; yes, we can; the soaring expectations framed by the brilliant oratory of the president's Cairo speech on relations with the Muslim world; his Prague speech on eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide; and his Oslo speech when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, "don't do stupid shit" is a comedown even from his expectation-lowering remarks in the Philippines on that same Asia trip in which he limned his vision for a foreign policy that consisted mostly of "singles" and "doubles."
What's more, this aromatic, distilled essence of the Obama doctrine was not, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, offered up in the heat of the moment. It was not a one-time manifestation of temper from the famously cool commander in chief. Last week, in a private meeting with foreign-policy columnists, he reportedly used the exact same formulation again. Mike Allen later observed in Politico's Playbook that the White House was consciously selling the idea to the media as if it were the kind of elevating notion that would lift the president's foreign policy out of the reputational ditch in which it has recently found itself. The author puts it even better than I can further in the article. Announcing the red line in Syria? Definitely stupid shit; he didn't have to say anything and shouldn't have if he didn't mean to follow through. Letting it be crossed 12 times before acting? Stupid shit. Announcing a plan to take moderate action and then withdrawing it afterward? Also stupid. Announcing support for Syrian moderates and not giving it in a timely or adequate fashion? Same. Entering Libya without a long-term plan and letting it fall into chaos immediately after the U.S. departure? Given all we know from every other intervention the United States has ever been involved with overseas, ditto. Overly focusing on core al Qaeda as terrorist franchises spread around the world as never before? More of same, mainly because it involved willful self-delusion and valuing a political message over the ground truth. Being so indecisive on Egypt that the United States had two policies at once -- one in the State Department and one in the White House? Appointing ambassadors without the credentials to do the job only because they donated money? Taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin into action with laughable sanctions? Yes, yes, yes. In each case, not only should we have known better, but there were actually people in the administration who did know better and were ignored.
To give the president and his team the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was doing all these things that helped shape the new doctrine. Perhaps it takes time to learn stupid. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/04/obama_dont_do_stupid_shit_foreign_policy_bowe_bergdahlI cannot wait until the next president is around, whoever he (or probably she) is, because in the grand order of Presidents of the United States I don't think we can get much worse in terms of rudderless arbitrary asininity than what we have today. When replying, keep in mind, this is not a knee-jerk reaction to Bergdahl. This is about the course and conduct of grand strategy in American foreign policy and our lack of any such credible strategy for the past near decade. Not that I disagree on the idea that Obama's foreign policy has been anything but a wishy washy heap of nothing, it's just that as a foreigner I much prefer a wishy washy heap of nothing to the blind militaristic crashing and thrashing that was his predecessor. At least, if you're going to criticize Obama, recognize that in the long run he has done less harm to US policies than Bush.
Neoconservatism is stupid, but at least under every president in the last century you could predict American action and allies as well as enemies understood that the United States was on a stable platform, whatever it may be. - Wilson - idealism
- Harding through Hoover - isolationism
- FDR - liberalism
- Truman through ford - realism
- Carter - idealism
- Reagan through bush - neoconservatism
- Clinton - liberal constructivism
- Bush - neoconservatism
- Obama - 'red lines' for the american news cameras but you can cross them lol and apparently 'dont do stupid shit'
I will submit that the destruction of the international norms of the responsibility to protect, the taboo against the use of chemical and biological weapons, and the sovereign integrity of the borders of the states of Europe will do far more damage in the future and cause great power war when compared to Bush's failed nation-building efforts, among the many other things he has been responsible for under his watch.
The lack of any policy behind the words 'pivot to asia' is especially distressing as well considering without clear articulation it puts into danger the actual interconnections that exist between the United States and China.
Finally, his oft-used stick of costs and red lines without backing up when he says it will cripple American foreign policy for the remainder of his term in office and perhaps even after he is gone.
On June 06 2014 08:01 KwarK wrote:
itsjustatank you're simultaneously attacking Obama for intervening too much and not enough in the same countries. Might as well criticise him for the weather.
Not responsive, try again. This argument isn't reducible to what you are attempting to get away with. You must articulate and defend a clear foreign policy grand strategy by the Obama administration to win. All states act in self-interest, but does Obama have a definition of what he thinks what America's self-interest is? His statements indicate he really doesn't and acts in a reactionary knee-jerk way for the American domestic cameras crisis-by-crisis.
Also if what you are trying to say is basically 'he is doing his best' that is absolutely not good enough when you dictate the foreign policy of a country like the United States.
|
Itsjustatank has it right. The damage that Obama has done is insidious in that it is not an immediate harm. This is a bill that we're going to pay later.
|
So wait. The predictability of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions make them better policy than the ambiguous talk of Obama?
|
Henry Kissinger, eat your heart out.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
On June 06 2014 11:33 IgnE wrote:
So wait. The predictability of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions make them better policy than the ambiguous talk of Obama?
They were policy based on an understanding of how the world works and what the interests of the United States were interpreted to be. So yes.
You are also absolutely missing the point.
|
Your point seems to be that predictability, even when based on greedy, stupid, and/or baseless reasoning, trumps (failed) attempts at canny diplomacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
