| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On August 21 2011 07:39 koreasilver wrote: The foundations were laid down in the soil of America like a century ago. I don't think so, but the modern republic party started with reagan in my opinion. | ||
|
Dragom
194 Posts
On August 16 2011 22:50 Candadar wrote: I don't know how anyone can vote for Bachmann. That bitch is crazy as hell. I can give 500 more of these comedic gold quotes from her. Ranging from her saying the Revolution started in New Hampshire to her saying that Evolutionists are trying to overthrow the world to make a one-nation government to control us all. I'm fine with Republicans, and even Republicans winning -- but fucking Christ not THIS one. I'd rather have Palin than this person. Can you give me 500 more of those quotes? I would love to hear more of those idiotic things. | ||
|
munchmunch
Canada789 Posts
On August 21 2011 06:34 Zergneedsfood wrote: So he's a pragmatist and a centrist that has had to make concessions on tax cuts but has continued to maintain tax cuts for the middle class So he's proposed an infrastructure bank that would create jobs but people like you obviously haven't really followed with it. So he's passed an overhaul of financial regulation that, while may have problems, recognizes that scrutinizing banks too much only hurts their competitiveness against British, Swedish, and Chinese banks. So he's figured out that while in office, there are issues of national security that probably requires places like Guantanamo and certain spy programs and such to stay open. So he's found that sometimes it can be dangerous to just release state secrets. So he's almost ended the war in Iraq and left only non-combat troops. So he's totally for human rights and has called for certain dictators to step down, something that's been hard for previous administrations to do. So he's escalated a war in the country that's been completely ignored by the other Administration since 2003. Really? Does anyone want to come up with a logical and well founded reason that gives us a GREAT reason why we shouldn't like someone who's been trying his best to get the country on the right track? Somebody PLEASE tell me. I'm DYING to hear them. >.> In some ways, I agree. He has been the president the US needs, rather than the president I would want (I'd like to see a strong progressive voice). However, there is one area where the criticisms of Obama really hit home for me, where his track record is actually worse than Bush: justice issues. His administration is using the state secrets privilege more aggressively than Bush, they are going after whistle-blowers more aggressively than Bush, and oh yeah, they aren't doing anything about war crimes and Guantanamo bay either. I could understand the need for compromise on the last two, but the first two? Never. | ||
|
Fleebenworth
463 Posts
Really I'm not sure why I should have to link you to examples of drastic reversals in policy on things such as torture (another for fun)and domestic spying since you seem to think you're the most informed person in the room, but hey I guess none of us are what we pretend to be. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On August 21 2011 07:56 munchmunch wrote: In some ways, I agree. He has been the president the US needs, rather than the president I would want (I'd like to see a strong progressive voice). However, there is one area where the criticisms of Obama really hit home for me, where his track record is actually worse than Bush: justice issues. His administration is using the state secrets privilege more aggressively than Bush, they are going after whistle-blowers more aggressively than Bush, and oh yeah, they aren't doing anything about war crimes and Guantanamo bay either. I could understand the need for compromise on the last two, but the first two? Never. Fair enough. I find that the Julian Assange deal was a lot more complicated than it needed to be. I think a healthy democracy is enforced by transparency, so I'm fine with letting out secrets. Though I could see why Obama would have to do this. Let's remember that it was around the time of Wikileaks that President Obama was conducting operations to get rid of Osama bin Laden. I would imagine that would be a very tight kept state secret and there'd be good reason to keep it secret. | ||
|
Fleebenworth
463 Posts
On August 21 2011 07:59 Zergneedsfood wrote: Fair enough. I find that the Julian Assange deal was a lot more complicated than it needed to be. I think a healthy democracy is enforced by transparency, so I'm fine with letting out secrets. Though I could see why Obama would have to do this. Let's remember that it was around the time of Wikileaks that President Obama was conducting operations to get rid of Osama bin Laden. I would imagine that would be a very tight kept state secret and there'd be good reason to keep it secret. Do you really think the whistle-blowing thing is just about wikileaks? It is you, my friend, who seems not to read the news. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On August 21 2011 08:03 Fleebenworth wrote: Do you really think the whistle-blowing thing is just about wikileaks? It is you, my friend, who seems not to read the news. I don't have to cite every example do I? I got lucky when you cited one after your initial response. >.> I'm assuming you just want to go on the personal attack instead of addressing my points? If not, and I think you don't want to do that, then I've got a couple to yours. On August 21 2011 07:58 Fleebenworth wrote: Please explain to me how doubling the number of troops and more than doubling the number of private contractors and drastically increasing the number of drone killings in Pakistan is out of the President's control. Really I'm not sure why I should have to link you to examples of drastic reversals in policy on things such as torture (another for fun)and domestic spying since you seem to think you're the most informed person in the room, but hey I guess none of us are what we pretend to be. Okay. I'm glad you're bringing these things up, because I whole heartedly want to talk about them. I don't think I'm the most informed. In fact, I'm constantly looking for things to learn. It's just when claims are thrown out randomly that it gets on my nerves. So if you read your previous posts, if all you do is call me a partisan hack there's inevitably going to be hard feelings. Like I said, if you provide actual stuff, I'm totally happy to discuss it. On the issue of troops. First, doubling the number of troops was not an initiative by the president but instead by his secretary of defense and his joint chiefs of staffs. The surge in Afghanistan was not his idea but its architect was instead Stanley McChrystal. Even if you say that he was the one that accepted, it's right for us to go into Afghanistan and leave Iraq (as we did), because we finally got to turn our attention to the real issue: the country that we abandoned years ago. The increasing in drone killings in Pakistan were used in targeting high level Taliban targets. Sure that has done a few things that I'm irked about, but I feel it's much better than a nation building strategy that would've required a larger commitment. Also, he's said he has a withdrawal plan, and what's the first complaint? That it's too fast. Give the president a break at least. Every time he's offered a plan there's some type of heavy criticism from one side or the other. On the issue of torture, wiretapping, etc. Yes, I know he's continued them. But I've already told you why. Do you really think that a president can simply close down Gitmo and not extend security measures while we're fighting the war on terror? Maybe you think we can, but I would assume that under the circumstances of being president, President Obama understands that for the sake of national security, things need to stay the way they are. Let's also remember that the Republicans were pushing hard for it too, and would be willing to block budget negotiations to get it through. Just to make sure, I am not in favor of his policy reversals. But there are rational ideas behind it that I am willing to respect. Once again, my point is this: give President Obama credit where credit is due. The man is trying his best to reverse America's image around the world and turn around the economy. There's no reason to outright hate him on grounds and evidence that doesn't really have much merit to it. I'm as disappointed as a lot of liberals that I know, but that doesn't keep me from thinking and appreciating the guy. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On August 21 2011 07:50 BlackFlag wrote: I don't think so, but the modern republic party started with reagan in my opinion. The theocratic yearning seen in the Christian Right in America, in the forms of Dominionism and Reconstructionism, is built upon American Fundamentalism which has been around long before Bush was born or Reagan got involved in politics. | ||
|
Petninja
United States159 Posts
| ||
|
Fleebenworth
463 Posts
The GWoT is a nebulously defined conflict which now seems to include a whole host of things which were previously seen as crime. This is a thinly veiled ploy so that law enforcement can use previously illegal means to bypass the few weakened constitutional rights we still possess. Obama has expanded and sought greater authority to continue with Bush-era spying programs (I imagine few Obama supporters were in favor of those programs when the details were leaked). On the economy he has done NOTHING to actually stimulate demand and spur new job creation. The only time he seems to show any sense of urgency at all is when the rigged stock markets take a meaningless dive. We are clearly not at a time in history when pragmatism is a prudent course of action. Sometimes great leaders are needed to shape public opinion instead of following, to act boldly instead of constantly reacting. I know it's early, but assuming the next two (six?) years go in much the same way as the previous two, I cannot see how he will go down as anything other than a weak conciliator in a time of universal crisis. People did not elect Obama to continue down the same road. Fuck Bush and fuck Obama. | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
| ||
|
Fleebenworth
463 Posts
On August 21 2011 08:28 Uhh Negative wrote: I sure hope Obama isn't in there another 4 years. But looking at the GOP candidates, none really stand out. We need to get someone somewhat moderate in there. None of these left and right wing people. Preferably slightly conservative. Yeah that pretty much describes Obama. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On August 21 2011 08:26 Fleebenworth wrote: Obama had final say on any plan in Afghanistan. Very senior people like Karl Eikenberry and Gen. James Jones were both vociferously opposed to any expansion of the Afghanistan War; both have since resigned. I am really not sure how you just give him a pass for massively expanding the war simply because he is calling it something other than nation building. The policy results are the same. The GWoT is a nebulously defined conflict which now seems to include a whole host of things which were previously seen as crime. This is a thinly veiled ploy so that law enforcement can use previously illegal means to bypass the few weakened constitutional rights we still possess. Obama disagrees, and has expanded and sought greater authority to continue with Bush-era spying programs (I imagine few Obama supporters were in favor of those programs when the details were leaked). On the economy he has done NOTHING to actually stimulate demand and spur new job creation. The only time he seems to show any sense of urgency at all is when the rigged stock markets take a meaningless dive. We are clearly not at a time in history when pragmatism is a prudent course of action. Sometimes great leaders are needed to shape public opinion instead of following, to act boldly instead of constantly reacting. I know it's early, but assuming the next two (six?) years go in much the same way as the previous two, I cannot see how he will go down as anything other than a weak conciliator in a time of universal crisis. People did not elect Obama to continue down the same road. Fuck Bush and fuck Obama. And just like Eikenberry and Jones were against it, there were plenty of top generals like Petraeus, Miller, and McChrystal that were for it. We can debate their records all day, but there are people for and against the war. I'm sure there's always a debate of whether or not we should intervene. But let's go beyond that. I also didn't give him a pass. Like I said, I'm as disappointed as the next liberal about some of the things that he's done. But he's pulled out of Iraq, and he's in the right place. He also has a withdrawal plan, which means he has an exit strategy. The reason why he has to be so committed is because he has to rectify the mistakes that Bush did when he ignored the Afghanistan. And I disagree that the policy results are the same. Nation building in Iraq created a dysfunctional parliamentary system. Counter terrorism efforts killed Osama Bin Laden. There's a huge discrepancy in how Obama is approaching the War on Terror and how Bush did it. That's important to understand. Yes, spying is bad, but it almost sounds like you see the war on terror as some kind of governmental conspiracy. I won't get into that, but like I said, as much as I don't like the invasion of privacy rights, I see why President Obama would do such a thing when there's fear of lone wolf terrorism around the world. It's things like the Time Square Bombing and the underwear bomber that makes us aware that terrorist activities can come into the country. On the issue of the economy, I also have to disagree. He hasn't done "nothing" to stimulate demand and boost job creation. What you're suggesting is that the stimulus failed. So are we supposed to increase stimulus? The stimulus almost failed to pass (only by 1 vote), and current spending measures and gridlock in Washington is shutting everything down. The stock rose after the bailouts and stimulus. After the federal government bailed out GM, the company is back on its feet and making profits and jobs. He hasn't done "nothing". He's definitely done something. I'm getting the vibe that you're in the mentality that President Obama needs to be more aggressive. But that can't happen in the current political climate. Gridlock in Washington requires compromise, and practical solutions to difficult problems are the only way of solving things. Is that really so hard to accept? So no, stop saying "fuck Obama", because I still don't see why there should be so hate. I've already told you that, like you, I'm disappointed. But that doesn't justify us wrecking his practical agenda. | ||
|
ronpaul012
United States769 Posts
| ||
|
Fleebenworth
463 Posts
The notion that Obama is facing some sort of unprecedented resistance is, of course, ridiculous. The nature of the opposition is to....oppose the things that you want to accomplish. Of course in Obama's case, since we've already established he's the same and worse than Bush on matters of spying, torture, state secrecy, escalation of unwinnable wars, etc. That leaves... health care and the economy? Obama hasn't shown too much desire to meaningfully fix either, let alone live up to his rhetoric. His problem is that he's so much of a pragmatist that he is unwilling to take action that is deemed unconventional by the plutocrats that run this country; nevermind that it's three decades of CW that has gotten the country in this mess. He is unwilling or unable to get his hands dirty in the pursuit of real policy goals. Yes, spying is bad, but it almost sounds like you see the war on terror as some kind of governmental conspiracy. I won't get into that, but like I said, as much as I don't like the invasion of privacy rights, I see why President Obama would do such a thing when there's fear of lone wolf terrorism around the world. It's things like the Time Square Bombing and the underwear bomber that makes us aware that terrorist activities can come into the country. How is this anything other than an excuse? Did you support the domestic spying programs under Bush? You mean the same lone wolves that all of our spying was not able to stop? I'm glad you are so willing to give up the protections of the constitution in the pursuit of some overblown threat, but I think it's incredibly short-sighted and scares the shit out of me. What is the point of recording all internet traffic including CC numbers, passwords, etc. for a year? Do you really think they are applying this shit only to "terrorists"?! WAKE UP | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On August 21 2011 09:03 Fleebenworth wrote: I'm sure GWB has a lot of excuses for all the bad things he did too. These aren't excuses. o_O | ||
|
mud123
27 Posts
| ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On August 21 2011 00:57 gimpy wrote: Wow, I'm starting to love Perry. I didn't know that much about him untill now. It is hard for you to understand us conservatives, but know that we're not crazy, we just belive STRONGLY in a few principles. I understand you conservatives perfectly fine, as I was one when I was younger and more foolish. 1st: There IS a creator of the the universe, and he is most likely the God of the Bible If there is a creator of the universe, he is most definitely NOT the god of the bible. and we feel it is more important to obey Him over the Govt whenever the 2 are in conflict (like letting our kids know that homosexual sex is "sin" and treating abortion as "murder". Good for you. So obey him. That's between you and your god. It has nothing to do with me. Why do you want to make it so that it involves me? Get out of my personal life, my life is between me and my god. 2nd: We are to be a blessing (by God's command) to those in need (conservative Christians are the most generous with their money to the needy by far) Making random statements doesn't make them true. TL is predominantly teenager and liberal, but as you get older, many of you will suddenly start to understand the wisdom of conservatism. (as I did) As I got older I understood just how provincial, foolish, and hypocritical the main tenets of 'conservatism' are. | ||
|
SySLeif
United States123 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On August 21 2011 10:13 SySLeif wrote: Wow why is this a bash republican thread. Can't believe TL hasn't banned it. Probably because most of them are European Socialist who think America should have high debt and fail as many European countries do. Socialist are nothing but lazy ass people who expect free handouts from others. bashing republicans and being socialist are not mutually inclusive of each other | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
SHIN vs TriGGeR
herO vs Reynor
Maru vs MaxPax
WardiTV Korean Royale
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
WardiTV Korean Royale
SC Evo League
IPSL
Julia vs Artosis
JDConan vs DragOn
OSC
BSL 21
TerrOr vs Aeternum
HBO vs Kyrie
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
