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.
RADDATZ: Let’s talk about some specific, and you talk about leadership and you talk about big, bold, fresh ideas. What is your big, bold, fresh idea in Syria?
WALKER: Well, I think – I go back to the red line.
RADDATZ: Let’s not go back. Let’s go forward. What is your big, bold idea in Syria?
WALKER: I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action. I think it should be surgical.
RADDATZ: You don’t think 2,000 air strikes is taking it to ISIS in Syria and Iraq?
WALKER: I think we need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world. I think it’s a mistake to –
RADDATZ: But what does that mean? I don’t know what aggressive strategy means. If we’re bombing and we’ve done 2,000 air strikes, what does an aggressive strategy mean in foreign policy?
WALKER: I think anywhere and everywhere, we have to be – go beyond just aggressive air strikes. We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that’s what it takes, because I think, you know–
RADDATZ: Boots on the ground in Syria? U.S. boots on the ground in Syria?
WALKER: I don’t think that is an immediate plan, but I think anywhere in the world–
RADDATZ: But you would not rule that out.
WALKER: I wouldn’t rule anything out. I think when you have the lives of Americans at stake and our freedom loving allies anywhere in the world, we have to be prepared to do things that don’t allow those measures, those attacks, those abuses to come to our shores.
Yeah, I saw that. Guess who said the same thing? Chuck Hagel. Obama is basically advocating the same thing as well with his push for additional authorizations to use force. I have no doubt that Hillary would adopt the same position. No one's advocating invading Syria. People just say we should keep options open.
On February 03 2015 02:00 farvacola wrote: This one's for you, xDaunt The following is an excerpt from an interview with Scott Walker.
RADDATZ: Let’s talk about some specific, and you talk about leadership and you talk about big, bold, fresh ideas. What is your big, bold, fresh idea in Syria?
WALKER: Well, I think – I go back to the red line.
RADDATZ: Let’s not go back. Let’s go forward. What is your big, bold idea in Syria?
WALKER: I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action. I think it should be surgical.
RADDATZ: You don’t think 2,000 air strikes is taking it to ISIS in Syria and Iraq?
WALKER: I think we need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world. I think it’s a mistake to –
RADDATZ: But what does that mean? I don’t know what aggressive strategy means. If we’re bombing and we’ve done 2,000 air strikes, what does an aggressive strategy mean in foreign policy?
WALKER: I think anywhere and everywhere, we have to be – go beyond just aggressive air strikes. We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that’s what it takes, because I think, you know–
RADDATZ: Boots on the ground in Syria? U.S. boots on the ground in Syria?
WALKER: I don’t think that is an immediate plan, but I think anywhere in the world–
RADDATZ: But you would not rule that out.
WALKER: I wouldn’t rule anything out. I think when you have the lives of Americans at stake and our freedom loving allies anywhere in the world, we have to be prepared to do things that don’t allow those measures, those attacks, those abuses to come to our shores.
Yeah, I saw that. Guess who said the same thing? Chuck Hagel. Obama is basically advocating the same thing as well with his push for additional authorizations to use force. I have no doubt that Hillary would adopt the same position. No one's advocating invading Syria. People just say we should keep options open.
On February 03 2015 02:00 farvacola wrote: This one's for you, xDaunt The following is an excerpt from an interview with Scott Walker.
RADDATZ: Let’s talk about some specific, and you talk about leadership and you talk about big, bold, fresh ideas. What is your big, bold, fresh idea in Syria?
WALKER: Well, I think – I go back to the red line.
RADDATZ: Let’s not go back. Let’s go forward. What is your big, bold idea in Syria?
WALKER: I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action. I think it should be surgical.
RADDATZ: You don’t think 2,000 air strikes is taking it to ISIS in Syria and Iraq?
WALKER: I think we need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world. I think it’s a mistake to –
RADDATZ: But what does that mean? I don’t know what aggressive strategy means. If we’re bombing and we’ve done 2,000 air strikes, what does an aggressive strategy mean in foreign policy?
WALKER: I think anywhere and everywhere, we have to be – go beyond just aggressive air strikes. We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that’s what it takes, because I think, you know–
RADDATZ: Boots on the ground in Syria? U.S. boots on the ground in Syria?
WALKER: I don’t think that is an immediate plan, but I think anywhere in the world–
RADDATZ: But you would not rule that out.
WALKER: I wouldn’t rule anything out. I think when you have the lives of Americans at stake and our freedom loving allies anywhere in the world, we have to be prepared to do things that don’t allow those measures, those attacks, those abuses to come to our shores.
Yeah, I saw that. Guess who said the same thing? Chuck Hagel. Obama is basically advocating the same thing as well with his push for additional authorizations to use force. I have no doubt that Hillary would adopt the same position. No one's advocating invading Syria. People just say we should keep options open.
Republicans are obviously weak on foreign policy.
Yeah no kidding. The new fresh Republican is pushing what xDaunt says is basically the Obama plan... That sums up so much in so few words it's kind of great.
On February 03 2015 04:19 ondricsc2 wrote: One of the few people who gets what MAINSTREAM MEDIA doesnt tell is RON PAUL. THAT guy shold have been president in the USA'''''!!!!!!!!!!!!
another great video - maybe just google him on youtube.
During the primaries of the last election, Paul got totally cheated. I remember at one point, CNN reported Romney in the lead, Ryan in second, and Santorum in 4th. Completely skipping Ron Paul in 3rd. And in the little graphic to go with it, every other candidate had a smiling portrait by his name. Ron Paul had a silhouette like you might see for a cartoon villain. On multiple occasions, they'd be interviewing someone about the race, and as soon as they started to talk about Ron Paul, they'd conveniently "lose the satellite feed".
On February 03 2015 02:32 oneofthem wrote: we already have some boots on the ground
I have no doubt that we do, but what is being suggested goes beyond covert ops stuff.
what exactly is proposed anyway? it surely isn't boots on ground because we already have that, but the specific policy isn't specified.
It isn't clear what Obama wants, but it look suspiciously like a blank check.
Just to be clear that's the Republican plan too, at least that's what you were suggesting right?
There is no republican plan. Congressional republicans have invited Obama to provide specifics regarding what he wants authorization to do. No republican presidential candidate has said anything more than what Walker said as far as I know, which is to say, nothing that looks like a plan.
On February 03 2015 02:32 oneofthem wrote: we already have some boots on the ground
I have no doubt that we do, but what is being suggested goes beyond covert ops stuff.
what exactly is proposed anyway? it surely isn't boots on ground because we already have that, but the specific policy isn't specified.
It isn't clear what Obama wants, but it look suspiciously like a blank check.
Just to be clear that's the Republican plan too, at least that's what you were suggesting right?
There is no republican plan. Congressional republicans have invited Obama to provide specifics regarding what he wants authorization to do. No republican presidential candidate has said anything more than what Walker said as far as I know, which is to say, nothing that looks like a plan.
it sure looks like they are not happy with the current policy, and they seem to say stuff like we need to be tougher etc. that is looking like advancing a policy proposal.
so if their proposal is not a plan it just means they don't know what to do at any specific level either
On February 03 2015 02:32 oneofthem wrote: we already have some boots on the ground
I have no doubt that we do, but what is being suggested goes beyond covert ops stuff.
what exactly is proposed anyway? it surely isn't boots on ground because we already have that, but the specific policy isn't specified.
It isn't clear what Obama wants, but it look suspiciously like a blank check.
Just to be clear that's the Republican plan too, at least that's what you were suggesting right?
There is no republican plan. Congressional republicans have invited Obama to provide specifics regarding what he wants authorization to do. No republican presidential candidate has said anything more than what Walker said as far as I know, which is to say, nothing that looks like a plan.
it sure looks like they are not happy with the current policy, and they seem to say stuff like we need to be tougher etc. that is looking like advancing a policy proposal.
so if their proposal is not a plan it just means they don't know what to do at any specific level either
Of course Republicans are not happy with the current policy. Obama's policy on Syria to date has been an absolute shit show. Frankly, I don't think anyone has an answer for what the US should do to clean up this mess. I tend to think that mitigation is all that's possible. The best that we can do is rebuild strong ties with our regional allies.
On February 03 2015 02:32 oneofthem wrote: we already have some boots on the ground
I have no doubt that we do, but what is being suggested goes beyond covert ops stuff.
what exactly is proposed anyway? it surely isn't boots on ground because we already have that, but the specific policy isn't specified.
It isn't clear what Obama wants, but it look suspiciously like a blank check.
Just to be clear that's the Republican plan too, at least that's what you were suggesting right?
There is no republican plan. Congressional republicans have invited Obama to provide specifics regarding what he wants authorization to do. No republican presidential candidate has said anything more than what Walker said as far as I know, which is to say, nothing that looks like a plan.
it sure looks like they are not happy with the current policy, and they seem to say stuff like we need to be tougher etc. that is looking like advancing a policy proposal.
so if their proposal is not a plan it just means they don't know what to do at any specific level either
Of course Republicans are not happy with the current policy. Obama's policy on Syria to date has been an absolute shit show. Frankly, I don't think anyone has an answer for what the US should do to clean up this mess. I tend to think that mitigation is all that's possible. The best that we can do is rebuild strong ties with our regional allies.
Obama's policy is awful! But I have no coherent answer either. BUT OBAMA IS MUCH WORSE.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) doubled down on his position that most vaccines should be voluntary, suggesting Monday that mandated immunization is an example of government overreach.
"The state doesn't own your children," Paul said in an interview with CNBC's "Closing Bell." "Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom and public health."
The Kentucky senator and potential 2016 hopeful received attention earlier in the day for his comment that people should be able to pick which immunizations to give their children.
The remark made waves as a widening measles outbreak in 14 states stirs political debate over vaccination.
On February 03 2015 02:32 oneofthem wrote: we already have some boots on the ground
I have no doubt that we do, but what is being suggested goes beyond covert ops stuff.
what exactly is proposed anyway? it surely isn't boots on ground because we already have that, but the specific policy isn't specified.
It isn't clear what Obama wants, but it look suspiciously like a blank check.
Just to be clear that's the Republican plan too, at least that's what you were suggesting right?
There is no republican plan. Congressional republicans have invited Obama to provide specifics regarding what he wants authorization to do. No republican presidential candidate has said anything more than what Walker said as far as I know, which is to say, nothing that looks like a plan.
it sure looks like they are not happy with the current policy, and they seem to say stuff like we need to be tougher etc. that is looking like advancing a policy proposal.
so if their proposal is not a plan it just means they don't know what to do at any specific level either
Of course Republicans are not happy with the current policy. Obama's policy on Syria to date has been an absolute shit show. Frankly, I don't think anyone has an answer for what the US should do to clean up this mess. I tend to think that mitigation is all that's possible. The best that we can do is rebuild strong ties with our regional allies.
Obama's policy is awful! But I have no coherent answer either. BUT OBAMA IS MUCH WORSE.
Hey, Obama is the one who fucked it up with almost 4 years of incoherent policy. Don't blame the rest of us if we can't see an easy way out beyond sitting on the sidelines and bolstering our ties to our Middle Eastern allies.
On February 03 2015 02:32 oneofthem wrote: we already have some boots on the ground
I have no doubt that we do, but what is being suggested goes beyond covert ops stuff.
what exactly is proposed anyway? it surely isn't boots on ground because we already have that, but the specific policy isn't specified.
It isn't clear what Obama wants, but it look suspiciously like a blank check.
Just to be clear that's the Republican plan too, at least that's what you were suggesting right?
There is no republican plan. Congressional republicans have invited Obama to provide specifics regarding what he wants authorization to do. No republican presidential candidate has said anything more than what Walker said as far as I know, which is to say, nothing that looks like a plan.
it sure looks like they are not happy with the current policy, and they seem to say stuff like we need to be tougher etc. that is looking like advancing a policy proposal.
so if their proposal is not a plan it just means they don't know what to do at any specific level either
Of course Republicans are not happy with the current policy. Obama's policy on Syria to date has been an absolute shit show. Frankly, I don't think anyone has an answer for what the US should do to clean up this mess. I tend to think that mitigation is all that's possible. The best that we can do is rebuild strong ties with our regional allies.
Obama's policy is awful! But I have no coherent answer either. BUT OBAMA IS MUCH WORSE.
What an interesting takeaway from the usual TL attitude, which seem to say the exact opposite that Obama's foreign policy is fine because the Republicans are so weak on foreign policy.
(Bloomberg) -- One U.S. refinery is shutting while management takes control of operations at six others after union workers walked out of the plants in the biggest strike since 1980.
The United Steelworkers union that represents employees at more than 200 refineries, terminals, pipelines and chemical plants stopped work Sunday at nine sites, accounting for 10 percent of the country’s refining capacity, after contract negotiations fell apart. The union rejected five offers made by Royal Dutch Shell Plc on behalf of companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. since talks began Jan. 21. Tesoro Corp. is shutting half of its 166,000-barrel-a-day Martinez plant in California that wasn’t already idled for maintenance.
Union leaders haven’t called a strike nationally since 1980, when a stoppage lasted three months. While only one of the nine plants has curbed production amid the stoppage, a full walkout of USW workers would threaten to disrupt as much as 64 percent of U.S. fuel output. Shell and union officials began negotiations amid the biggest collapse in oil prices since 2008.
Refiners may cut operating rates “a little” during the strike, John Auers, executive vice president at Dallas-based Turner Mason & Co., said by phone Monday. “They won’t push the units as hard. The key will be to run them reliably and safely.”
The USW has been asking employers for pay increases, stronger rules to prevent fatigue and measures to keep union workers rather than contract employees on the job, Lynne Hancock, a union spokeswoman based in Nashville, Tennessee, said by phone on Monday. It’s also negotiating for better health-care benefits because workers are “paying too much” for deductibles and premiums, she said.
United Steelworkers members do everything from operating units to performing maintenance to testing and analyzing samples in labs at U.S. refineries, Hancock said.
The refineries on strike can produce 1.82 million barrels of fuel a day, data compiled by Bloomberg show. They span the U.S., from Tesoro’s plants in Martinez and Carson, California; and Anacortes, Washington, to Marathon Petroleum Corp.’s Catlettsburg complex in Kentucky to three sites in Texas, according to the USW’s statement.
EPT
The following is an excerpt from an interview with Scott Walker.
