|
|
On July 30 2012 19:46 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 13:14 Defacer wrote:On July 30 2012 09:07 Signet wrote:On July 30 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On July 30 2012 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 06:03 Derez wrote:On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Republican saber ratting begins: JERUSALEM—Speaking against the backdrop of the historic Old City, Mitt Romney signaled he supports Israel's right to "defend itself" against its enemies and said "any and all measures" should be considered in the world's efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The Republican candidate said preventing a nuclear Iran should be America's "highest national security priority." And while he argued that diplomatic efforts should continue, Romney insisted that all options should be on the table in dealing with Iran, including a military strike.
"We should employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course, and it is our fervent hope that diplomatic and economic measures will do so," Romney said in an outdoor speech at Mishkenot Sha'anamim, a cultural center in Jerusalem. "In the final analysis, of course, no option should be excluded. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself, and that it is right for America to stand with you. "
Romney pushed back against criticism that those arguing in favor of leaving the military option open are "reckless and provocative and inviting war." "The opposite is true. We are the true peacemakers," Romney said.
He argued that the threat of military action would put more pressure on the ayatollahs in Iran, whom he accused of "testing our moral defenses." Source I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too. I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development. Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table? Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man. The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table. I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point. Many conservatives have the hilarious belief that Obama is some sort of hippie who will avoid war no matter what that ends up costing. Romney's comments are meant to paint himself as a contrast to that boogeyman of a Democratic president. Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush. Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context. Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically. Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy. It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way. To clarify, his criticism was in Islamist (not Islamic) groups coming to power. “Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments,” Romney said in the interview with Israel Hayom. “We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.” SourceIslamist is a blend of Islam and government so the worry is that countries that elect an Islamist government will turn into a theocracy. It also creates an internal problem between the secular military and the religious government - a common problem in the middle east. (The election) sets up what is likely to be an uneasy ruling alliance between two longtime rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military, which has been the country's backbone of power and has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down last year. But the Brotherhood's long power struggle with military is far from over. The military has pledged to hand over power to Mr. Morsi by the end of the month. But Mr. Morsi will assume a presidency crippled by military-imposed constitutional changes that have stripped the office of most of its powers. Mr. Morsi faces daunting challenges and a divided nation, where many are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda. "They definitely have an agenda to impose Islamic Shariah," said Ahmed Saied, head of the secular Free Egyptians Party, referring to Islam's legal code. "We are dealing with people who are full of question marks and I really don't know where they want to take the country. I'm not comfortable with this." SourceSo, the situation is a bit more complex than you are making out to be. It's exactly as Defacer said though - those groups were elected democratically. What exactly should the US have done, according to Romney, if it wasn't letting the people decide for themselves who they wanted to elect?
No, Defacer said the Romney didn't like that an Islamic government was elected. He said that Romney wanted Arab countries to be "American Christian Democracies".
All Romney said was that he was disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected. That's it. He never said we should have stopped them from being elected.
|
Romney was right off course.
Islamist groups coming to power is not the desireable outcome for the arab spring and you can say that "we" bungled the arab spring.
The former leader of egypt was pretty much an alie of the usa and israel though he was a dictator.
Its nice to bring democracy to a country but if that democracy ends up removing an alie and installing a government wich is fundamentally seen as an enemy you can doubt if it changed the situation for the better for the usa (it did off course for the egyptian people)
Not saying that there was a good alternative, its not an easy situation but this definatly cant be the desired outcome for the usa.
I guess its just a transition stage though and not permanent.
|
On July 30 2012 22:37 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 10:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 09:52 aksfjh wrote:On July 30 2012 08:06 xDaunt wrote:On July 30 2012 07:55 aksfjh wrote:On July 29 2012 12:13 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2012 10:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Some stimulus research: CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness. Some highlights: If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields. In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance. The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here. Wow, just wow. This is facepalm worthy. The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt. The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise. Have we already forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009? Do you understand what happened in the first place? Yeah, all of those debt-based, derivative "assets" turned out to not have much value, causing the financial system to collapse on itself. Almost every investment is "debt-based." Somebody has capital and somebody else has something else they want to buy or invest in. True but too much equity is a much easier problem to manage than too much debt  Not sure what form of "equity" you're using. If you mean it's easier to manage an excess of capital than an excess of debt, then yes. In most cases that's true. Right now though, some may disagree with investors flocking to safe investments at a loss right now.
Equity is the value of an asset that belongs to an owner. If you buy a house with 20% down you have 20% equity in the home.
|
On July 31 2012 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 22:37 aksfjh wrote:On July 30 2012 10:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 09:52 aksfjh wrote:On July 30 2012 08:06 xDaunt wrote:On July 30 2012 07:55 aksfjh wrote:On July 29 2012 12:13 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2012 10:24 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 29 2012 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Some stimulus research: CNBC pointed out a research note that cited three independent studies suggesting that stimulus spending doesn't help during a period of over-indebtedness. Some highlights: If the effects of excessive indebtedness (low growth and low interest rates) are addressed by additional debt, or by debt utilized for investments that cannot produce an income stream to repay the obligations, then this even higher level of debt will serve to perpetuate the period of slow economic growth and unusually low bond yields. In the eleven quarters of this expansion, the growth of real per capita GDP was the lowest for all of the comparable post-WWII business cycle expansions (Table 2). Real per capita disposable personal income has risen by a scant 0.1% annual rate, remarkably weak when compared with the 2.9% post-war average. It is often said that economic conditions would have been much worse if the government had not run massive budget deficits and the Fed had not implemented extraordinary policies. This whole premise is wrong. In all likelihood the governmental measures made conditions worse, and the poor results reflect the counterproductive nature of fiscal and monetary policies. None of these numerous actions produced anything more than transitory improvement in economic conditions, followed by a quick retreat to a faltering pattern while leaving the economy saddled with even greater indebtedness. The diminutive gain in this expansion is clearly consistent with the view that government actions have hurt, rather than helped, economic performance. The note came from an investment company called Hoisington and for anyone interested can be found here. Wow, just wow. This is facepalm worthy. The first quote is saying "if debt is the problem, how can more debt be the solution", a line that is commonly repeated by economic illiterates. Everyone's debt is another's asset. If too much debt is the problem, then why is that not offset by the large amounts of assets that everyone has?
So what matters is not the level of debt, but rather the distribution of debt. Most of this debt is held my households, which are debt-constrained, cannot spend, and thus cannot boost aggregate demand. The quote says that government debt can't make the situation better because debt is the problem, but the government is not debt-constrained. The government can borrow at negative real interest rates, which means that the government can spend free money to boost aggregate demand. So not all debt is created equal. More (government) debt can solve the problem of too much (household) debt. The second quote says that fiscal policy and monetary policy are useless, and offers no reason, other than claiming, it's bad -- really bad. Even conservative economists agree that monetary policy is effective. You would have to be a crank to think otherwise. Have we already forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009? Do you understand what happened in the first place? Yeah, all of those debt-based, derivative "assets" turned out to not have much value, causing the financial system to collapse on itself. Almost every investment is "debt-based." Somebody has capital and somebody else has something else they want to buy or invest in. True but too much equity is a much easier problem to manage than too much debt Not sure what form of "equity" you're using. If you mean it's easier to manage an excess of capital than an excess of debt, then yes. In most cases that's true. Right now though, some may disagree with investors flocking to safe investments at a loss right now. Equity is the value of an asset that belongs to an owner. If you buy a house with 20% down you have 20% equity in the home.
Then yes, that is easier to manage than too much debt.
|
On July 31 2012 01:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 19:46 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2012 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 13:14 Defacer wrote:On July 30 2012 09:07 Signet wrote:On July 30 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On July 30 2012 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 06:03 Derez wrote:On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Republican saber ratting begins: [quote] Source I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too. I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development. Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table? Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man. The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table. I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point. Many conservatives have the hilarious belief that Obama is some sort of hippie who will avoid war no matter what that ends up costing. Romney's comments are meant to paint himself as a contrast to that boogeyman of a Democratic president. Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush. Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context. Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically. Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy. It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way. To clarify, his criticism was in Islamist (not Islamic) groups coming to power. “Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments,” Romney said in the interview with Israel Hayom. “We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.” SourceIslamist is a blend of Islam and government so the worry is that countries that elect an Islamist government will turn into a theocracy. It also creates an internal problem between the secular military and the religious government - a common problem in the middle east. (The election) sets up what is likely to be an uneasy ruling alliance between two longtime rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military, which has been the country's backbone of power and has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down last year. But the Brotherhood's long power struggle with military is far from over. The military has pledged to hand over power to Mr. Morsi by the end of the month. But Mr. Morsi will assume a presidency crippled by military-imposed constitutional changes that have stripped the office of most of its powers. Mr. Morsi faces daunting challenges and a divided nation, where many are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda. "They definitely have an agenda to impose Islamic Shariah," said Ahmed Saied, head of the secular Free Egyptians Party, referring to Islam's legal code. "We are dealing with people who are full of question marks and I really don't know where they want to take the country. I'm not comfortable with this." SourceSo, the situation is a bit more complex than you are making out to be. It's exactly as Defacer said though - those groups were elected democratically. What exactly should the US have done, according to Romney, if it wasn't letting the people decide for themselves who they wanted to elect? No, Defacer said the Romney didn't like that an Islamic government was elected. He said that Romney wanted Arab countries to be "American Christian Democracies". All Romney said was that he was disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected. That's it. He never said we should have stopped them from being elected.
But come on. Saying you're disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected implies you prefer the alternative. I should have put the word 'Christian' in quotations, because America seems to fancy itself as being founded on 'Christian' values.
|
Wasn't the CEO of PIMCO initially offered the prime minister slot by the new Islamist leader of Egypt? Doesn't sound that much like a theocracy based on that.
|
On July 31 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 19:46 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2012 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 13:14 Defacer wrote:On July 30 2012 09:07 Signet wrote:On July 30 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On July 30 2012 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 06:03 Derez wrote:
[quote]
I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too.
I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development. Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table? Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man. The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table. I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point. Many conservatives have the hilarious belief that Obama is some sort of hippie who will avoid war no matter what that ends up costing. Romney's comments are meant to paint himself as a contrast to that boogeyman of a Democratic president. Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush. Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context. Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically. Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy. It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way. To clarify, his criticism was in Islamist (not Islamic) groups coming to power. “Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments,” Romney said in the interview with Israel Hayom. “We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.” SourceIslamist is a blend of Islam and government so the worry is that countries that elect an Islamist government will turn into a theocracy. It also creates an internal problem between the secular military and the religious government - a common problem in the middle east. (The election) sets up what is likely to be an uneasy ruling alliance between two longtime rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military, which has been the country's backbone of power and has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down last year. But the Brotherhood's long power struggle with military is far from over. The military has pledged to hand over power to Mr. Morsi by the end of the month. But Mr. Morsi will assume a presidency crippled by military-imposed constitutional changes that have stripped the office of most of its powers. Mr. Morsi faces daunting challenges and a divided nation, where many are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda. "They definitely have an agenda to impose Islamic Shariah," said Ahmed Saied, head of the secular Free Egyptians Party, referring to Islam's legal code. "We are dealing with people who are full of question marks and I really don't know where they want to take the country. I'm not comfortable with this." SourceSo, the situation is a bit more complex than you are making out to be. It's exactly as Defacer said though - those groups were elected democratically. What exactly should the US have done, according to Romney, if it wasn't letting the people decide for themselves who they wanted to elect? No, Defacer said the Romney didn't like that an Islamic government was elected. He said that Romney wanted Arab countries to be "American Christian Democracies". All Romney said was that he was disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected. That's it. He never said we should have stopped them from being elected. But come on. Saying you're disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected implies you prefer the alternative. I should have put the word 'Christian' in quotations, because America seems to fancy itself as being founded on 'Christian' values.
You didn't write that Romney preferred the alternative. You wrote that he thinks American should have "not allowed" the Islamists to come to power. That's a HUGE difference. You also wrote that his issue was with an Islamic government and that he wanted them to have a 'Christian' one.
What you wrote implies that Romney is so bigoted against Islam that he'd stop a democratic process. If that was not your intent, please clarify what you really meant.
|
On July 31 2012 03:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:On July 31 2012 01:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 19:46 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2012 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 13:14 Defacer wrote:On July 30 2012 09:07 Signet wrote:On July 30 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On July 30 2012 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table?
Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man. The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table. I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point. Many conservatives have the hilarious belief that Obama is some sort of hippie who will avoid war no matter what that ends up costing. Romney's comments are meant to paint himself as a contrast to that boogeyman of a Democratic president. Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush. Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context. Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically. Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy. It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way. To clarify, his criticism was in Islamist (not Islamic) groups coming to power. “Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments,” Romney said in the interview with Israel Hayom. “We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.” SourceIslamist is a blend of Islam and government so the worry is that countries that elect an Islamist government will turn into a theocracy. It also creates an internal problem between the secular military and the religious government - a common problem in the middle east. (The election) sets up what is likely to be an uneasy ruling alliance between two longtime rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military, which has been the country's backbone of power and has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down last year. But the Brotherhood's long power struggle with military is far from over. The military has pledged to hand over power to Mr. Morsi by the end of the month. But Mr. Morsi will assume a presidency crippled by military-imposed constitutional changes that have stripped the office of most of its powers. Mr. Morsi faces daunting challenges and a divided nation, where many are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda. "They definitely have an agenda to impose Islamic Shariah," said Ahmed Saied, head of the secular Free Egyptians Party, referring to Islam's legal code. "We are dealing with people who are full of question marks and I really don't know where they want to take the country. I'm not comfortable with this." SourceSo, the situation is a bit more complex than you are making out to be. It's exactly as Defacer said though - those groups were elected democratically. What exactly should the US have done, according to Romney, if it wasn't letting the people decide for themselves who they wanted to elect? No, Defacer said the Romney didn't like that an Islamic government was elected. He said that Romney wanted Arab countries to be "American Christian Democracies". All Romney said was that he was disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected. That's it. He never said we should have stopped them from being elected. But come on. Saying you're disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected implies you prefer the alternative. I should have put the word 'Christian' in quotations, because America seems to fancy itself as being founded on 'Christian' values. You didn't write that Romney preferred the alternative. You wrote that he thinks American should have "not allowed" the Islamists to come to power. That's a HUGE difference. You also wrote that his issue was with an Islamic government and that he wanted them to have a 'Christian' one. What you wrote implies that Romney is so bigoted against Islam that he'd stop a democratic process. If that was not your intent, please clarify what you really meant.
The exact problem is that we don't know what course of action Romney would have preferred. Defacer's posts are speculative, I'll give you that, but if you criticize policy by the current administration you should try and come up with an alternative, especially as a presidential candidate.
American presidents don't have control over internal affairs in Egypt, and the only real decision they can make is behind what group they place their support. Obama went with 'wait and see' and then threw his support behind the protestors once it was pretty clear they were going to overthrow Mubarak. I think its fair to say that almost any American president would have done the same thing, because its the smart move to make in this situation. Romneys criticism is completely unfounded and extremely shallow; magically wishing for islamists not to come to power doesn't do anything.
(Also, on an unrelated note, the reports of islamists in the egyptian government are caricatures of the actual situation. You have to realize that the muslim brotherhood is one of very few broad organized movements in Egypt, and that they have left a lot of their islamist roots behind them. The fact is that combining islam with democracy scares western politicians and western voters, while it simultaneously is the only way actual democratic institutions will ever develop in the middle east. You encapsulate fringe groups in the democratic process, which will then either disappear because they offer no tangible solutions, or they move to more mainstream positions.)
|
On July 31 2012 03:27 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 03:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 31 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:On July 31 2012 01:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 19:46 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2012 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 13:14 Defacer wrote:On July 30 2012 09:07 Signet wrote:On July 30 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man. The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table. I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point. Many conservatives have the hilarious belief that Obama is some sort of hippie who will avoid war no matter what that ends up costing. Romney's comments are meant to paint himself as a contrast to that boogeyman of a Democratic president. Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush. Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context. Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically. Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy. It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way. To clarify, his criticism was in Islamist (not Islamic) groups coming to power. “Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments,” Romney said in the interview with Israel Hayom. “We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.” SourceIslamist is a blend of Islam and government so the worry is that countries that elect an Islamist government will turn into a theocracy. It also creates an internal problem between the secular military and the religious government - a common problem in the middle east. (The election) sets up what is likely to be an uneasy ruling alliance between two longtime rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military, which has been the country's backbone of power and has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down last year. But the Brotherhood's long power struggle with military is far from over. The military has pledged to hand over power to Mr. Morsi by the end of the month. But Mr. Morsi will assume a presidency crippled by military-imposed constitutional changes that have stripped the office of most of its powers. Mr. Morsi faces daunting challenges and a divided nation, where many are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda. "They definitely have an agenda to impose Islamic Shariah," said Ahmed Saied, head of the secular Free Egyptians Party, referring to Islam's legal code. "We are dealing with people who are full of question marks and I really don't know where they want to take the country. I'm not comfortable with this." SourceSo, the situation is a bit more complex than you are making out to be. It's exactly as Defacer said though - those groups were elected democratically. What exactly should the US have done, according to Romney, if it wasn't letting the people decide for themselves who they wanted to elect? No, Defacer said the Romney didn't like that an Islamic government was elected. He said that Romney wanted Arab countries to be "American Christian Democracies". All Romney said was that he was disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected. That's it. He never said we should have stopped them from being elected. But come on. Saying you're disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected implies you prefer the alternative. I should have put the word 'Christian' in quotations, because America seems to fancy itself as being founded on 'Christian' values. You didn't write that Romney preferred the alternative. You wrote that he thinks American should have "not allowed" the Islamists to come to power. That's a HUGE difference. You also wrote that his issue was with an Islamic government and that he wanted them to have a 'Christian' one. What you wrote implies that Romney is so bigoted against Islam that he'd stop a democratic process. If that was not your intent, please clarify what you really meant. The exact problem is that we don't know what course of action Romney would have preferred. Defacer's posts are speculative, I'll give you that, but if you criticize policy by the current administration you should try and come up with an alternative, especially as a presidential candidate. American presidents don't have control over internal affairs in Egypt, and the only real decision they can make is behind what group they place their support. Obama went with 'wait and see' and then threw his support behind the protestors once it was pretty clear they were going to overthrow Mubarak. I think its fair to say that almost any American president would have done the same thing, because its the smart move to make in this situation. Romneys criticism is completely unfounded and extremely shallow; magically wishing for islamists not to come to power doesn't do anything. (Also, on an unrelated note, the reports of islamists in the egyptian government are caricatures of the actual situation. You have to realize that the muslim brotherhood is one of very few broad organized movements in Egypt, and that they have left a lot of their islamist roots behind them. The fact is that combining islam with democracy scares western politicians and western voters, while it simultaneously is the only way actual democratic institutions will ever develop in the middle east. You encapsulate fringe groups in the democratic process, which will then either disappear because they offer no tangible solutions, or they move to more mainstream positions.)
The only significant difference in Mid-East policy (not counting Iraq/Afghanistan) between what Obama did and what Romney would have done that I can think of is that Romney likely would have supported the Iranian demonstrators back in 2009 (or was it 2010?) whereas Obama sat on his hands.
|
On July 31 2012 03:27 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 03:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 31 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:On July 31 2012 01:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 19:46 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2012 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 13:14 Defacer wrote:On July 30 2012 09:07 Signet wrote:On July 30 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man. The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table. I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point. Many conservatives have the hilarious belief that Obama is some sort of hippie who will avoid war no matter what that ends up costing. Romney's comments are meant to paint himself as a contrast to that boogeyman of a Democratic president. Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush. Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context. Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically. Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy. It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way. To clarify, his criticism was in Islamist (not Islamic) groups coming to power. “Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments,” Romney said in the interview with Israel Hayom. “We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.” SourceIslamist is a blend of Islam and government so the worry is that countries that elect an Islamist government will turn into a theocracy. It also creates an internal problem between the secular military and the religious government - a common problem in the middle east. (The election) sets up what is likely to be an uneasy ruling alliance between two longtime rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military, which has been the country's backbone of power and has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down last year. But the Brotherhood's long power struggle with military is far from over. The military has pledged to hand over power to Mr. Morsi by the end of the month. But Mr. Morsi will assume a presidency crippled by military-imposed constitutional changes that have stripped the office of most of its powers. Mr. Morsi faces daunting challenges and a divided nation, where many are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda. "They definitely have an agenda to impose Islamic Shariah," said Ahmed Saied, head of the secular Free Egyptians Party, referring to Islam's legal code. "We are dealing with people who are full of question marks and I really don't know where they want to take the country. I'm not comfortable with this." SourceSo, the situation is a bit more complex than you are making out to be. It's exactly as Defacer said though - those groups were elected democratically. What exactly should the US have done, according to Romney, if it wasn't letting the people decide for themselves who they wanted to elect? No, Defacer said the Romney didn't like that an Islamic government was elected. He said that Romney wanted Arab countries to be "American Christian Democracies". All Romney said was that he was disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected. That's it. He never said we should have stopped them from being elected. But come on. Saying you're disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected implies you prefer the alternative. I should have put the word 'Christian' in quotations, because America seems to fancy itself as being founded on 'Christian' values. You didn't write that Romney preferred the alternative. You wrote that he thinks American should have "not allowed" the Islamists to come to power. That's a HUGE difference. You also wrote that his issue was with an Islamic government and that he wanted them to have a 'Christian' one. What you wrote implies that Romney is so bigoted against Islam that he'd stop a democratic process. If that was not your intent, please clarify what you really meant. The exact problem is that we don't know what course of action Romney would have preferred. Defacer's posts are speculative, I'll give you that, but if you criticize policy by the current administration you should try and come up with an alternative, especially as a presidential candidate. American presidents don't have control over internal affairs in Egypt, and the only real decision they can make is behind what group they place their support. Obama went with 'wait and see' and then threw his support behind the protestors once it was pretty clear they were going to overthrow Mubarak. I think its fair to say that almost any American president would have done the same thing, because its the smart move to make in this situation. Romneys criticism is completely unfounded and extremely shallow; magically wishing for islamists not to come to power doesn't do anything. (Also, on an unrelated note, the reports of islamists in the egyptian government are caricatures of the actual situation. You have to realize that the muslim brotherhood is one of very few broad organized movements in Egypt, and that they have left a lot of their islamist roots behind them. The fact is that combining islam with democracy scares western politicians and western voters, while it simultaneously is the only way actual democratic institutions will ever develop in the middle east. You encapsulate fringe groups in the democratic process, which will then either disappear because they offer no tangible solutions, or they move to more mainstream positions.)
Romney was disappointed in the election results and thinks that Obama should have pushed for more democratic reforms prior to the Arab spring.
What is "completely unfounded and extremely shallow" about that?
|
Canada11370 Posts
On July 31 2012 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 03:27 Derez wrote:On July 31 2012 03:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 31 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:On July 31 2012 01:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 19:46 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2012 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 13:14 Defacer wrote:On July 30 2012 09:07 Signet wrote:On July 30 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table.
I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point. Many conservatives have the hilarious belief that Obama is some sort of hippie who will avoid war no matter what that ends up costing. Romney's comments are meant to paint himself as a contrast to that boogeyman of a Democratic president. Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush. Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context. Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically. Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy. It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way. To clarify, his criticism was in Islamist (not Islamic) groups coming to power. “Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments,” Romney said in the interview with Israel Hayom. “We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.” SourceIslamist is a blend of Islam and government so the worry is that countries that elect an Islamist government will turn into a theocracy. It also creates an internal problem between the secular military and the religious government - a common problem in the middle east. (The election) sets up what is likely to be an uneasy ruling alliance between two longtime rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military, which has been the country's backbone of power and has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down last year. But the Brotherhood's long power struggle with military is far from over. The military has pledged to hand over power to Mr. Morsi by the end of the month. But Mr. Morsi will assume a presidency crippled by military-imposed constitutional changes that have stripped the office of most of its powers. Mr. Morsi faces daunting challenges and a divided nation, where many are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda. "They definitely have an agenda to impose Islamic Shariah," said Ahmed Saied, head of the secular Free Egyptians Party, referring to Islam's legal code. "We are dealing with people who are full of question marks and I really don't know where they want to take the country. I'm not comfortable with this." SourceSo, the situation is a bit more complex than you are making out to be. It's exactly as Defacer said though - those groups were elected democratically. What exactly should the US have done, according to Romney, if it wasn't letting the people decide for themselves who they wanted to elect? No, Defacer said the Romney didn't like that an Islamic government was elected. He said that Romney wanted Arab countries to be "American Christian Democracies". All Romney said was that he was disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected. That's it. He never said we should have stopped them from being elected. But come on. Saying you're disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected implies you prefer the alternative. I should have put the word 'Christian' in quotations, because America seems to fancy itself as being founded on 'Christian' values. You didn't write that Romney preferred the alternative. You wrote that he thinks American should have "not allowed" the Islamists to come to power. That's a HUGE difference. You also wrote that his issue was with an Islamic government and that he wanted them to have a 'Christian' one. What you wrote implies that Romney is so bigoted against Islam that he'd stop a democratic process. If that was not your intent, please clarify what you really meant. The exact problem is that we don't know what course of action Romney would have preferred. Defacer's posts are speculative, I'll give you that, but if you criticize policy by the current administration you should try and come up with an alternative, especially as a presidential candidate. American presidents don't have control over internal affairs in Egypt, and the only real decision they can make is behind what group they place their support. Obama went with 'wait and see' and then threw his support behind the protestors once it was pretty clear they were going to overthrow Mubarak. I think its fair to say that almost any American president would have done the same thing, because its the smart move to make in this situation. Romneys criticism is completely unfounded and extremely shallow; magically wishing for islamists not to come to power doesn't do anything. (Also, on an unrelated note, the reports of islamists in the egyptian government are caricatures of the actual situation. You have to realize that the muslim brotherhood is one of very few broad organized movements in Egypt, and that they have left a lot of their islamist roots behind them. The fact is that combining islam with democracy scares western politicians and western voters, while it simultaneously is the only way actual democratic institutions will ever develop in the middle east. You encapsulate fringe groups in the democratic process, which will then either disappear because they offer no tangible solutions, or they move to more mainstream positions.) Romney was disappointed in the election results and thinks that Obama should have pushed for more democratic reforms prior to the Arab spring. What is "completely unfounded and extremely shallow" about that?
How should he have pushed for more democratic reforms exactly? He doesn't have control of the legislative process in Egypt and unless they're hoping to arm twist the Egyptians with economic clout or boots on the ground, there's no real way to push for democratic reforms except talk... and they can always ignore talk. Pushing for more democratic reforms prior to Arab spring is basically saying that I would've done the same thing only faster and better. Easy to say on the sidelines.
|
On Sunday night, the drafting committee for the Democratic Party platform voted unanimously to include a plank supporting marriage equality, a Democratic source confirmed to TPM.
The move comes after months of pressure from Democratic lawmakers, party officials and outside groups. The movement got a boost in May when President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage.
The Platform Drafting Committee’s vote on the draft was first reported by the Washington Blade. “I was part of a unanimous decision to include it,” Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) told the paper. “There was a unanimous decision in the drafting committee to include it in the platform, which I supported, but everybody was for it.”
Though the language of the draft is not yet available, the Blade’s report, confirmed by the Democratic source, says the platform includes other gay rights planks beyond marriage. The platform “rejects DOMA and has positive language with regard to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” the Blade reported.
Source
|
Throughout his presidential campaign, Mitt Romney has been running away from the individual insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act — even though a mandate is a cornerstone of the former Massachusetts governor’s health care reform law. “If I’m President of the United States, we’re gonna get rid of Obamacare and return, under our constitution, the 10th Amendment, the responsibility and care of health care to the people in the states,” Romney said during a GOP presidential debate.
But during his trip to Israel, Romney inadvertently praised the individual requirement and universal health care. “[F]or an American abroad, you can’t get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you do in Israel,” he said. And according to The New York Times, Romney spoke favorably about the fact that health care makes up a much smaller amount of Israel’s gross domestic product compared to the United States:
Source
|
On July 30 2012 23:17 SayGen wrote:
I had no idea how high the life expectancy was in Israel esp. considering how they keep getting bombed (RPGs, Mortors, rockets)
What percent of the population of Israel has died in such attacks? in order to reduce the life expectancy by 1 year, 2% of the entire country's population would have to be killed at an average age of 50 years younger than the overall life expectancy.
This article isn't about Israel, but it's on a related note and a good read:
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/life-expectancy-is-a-population-metric/
|
On July 31 2012 04:15 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 04:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 31 2012 03:27 Derez wrote:On July 31 2012 03:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 31 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:On July 31 2012 01:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 19:46 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2012 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 13:14 Defacer wrote:On July 30 2012 09:07 Signet wrote:
[quote]
Many conservatives have the hilarious belief that Obama is some sort of hippie who will avoid war no matter what that ends up costing. Romney's comments are meant to paint himself as a contrast to that boogeyman of a Democratic president. Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush. Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context. Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically. Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy. It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way. To clarify, his criticism was in Islamist (not Islamic) groups coming to power. “Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments,” Romney said in the interview with Israel Hayom. “We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.” SourceIslamist is a blend of Islam and government so the worry is that countries that elect an Islamist government will turn into a theocracy. It also creates an internal problem between the secular military and the religious government - a common problem in the middle east. (The election) sets up what is likely to be an uneasy ruling alliance between two longtime rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military, which has been the country's backbone of power and has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down last year. But the Brotherhood's long power struggle with military is far from over. The military has pledged to hand over power to Mr. Morsi by the end of the month. But Mr. Morsi will assume a presidency crippled by military-imposed constitutional changes that have stripped the office of most of its powers. Mr. Morsi faces daunting challenges and a divided nation, where many are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda. "They definitely have an agenda to impose Islamic Shariah," said Ahmed Saied, head of the secular Free Egyptians Party, referring to Islam's legal code. "We are dealing with people who are full of question marks and I really don't know where they want to take the country. I'm not comfortable with this." SourceSo, the situation is a bit more complex than you are making out to be. It's exactly as Defacer said though - those groups were elected democratically. What exactly should the US have done, according to Romney, if it wasn't letting the people decide for themselves who they wanted to elect? No, Defacer said the Romney didn't like that an Islamic government was elected. He said that Romney wanted Arab countries to be "American Christian Democracies". All Romney said was that he was disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected. That's it. He never said we should have stopped them from being elected. But come on. Saying you're disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected implies you prefer the alternative. I should have put the word 'Christian' in quotations, because America seems to fancy itself as being founded on 'Christian' values. You didn't write that Romney preferred the alternative. You wrote that he thinks American should have "not allowed" the Islamists to come to power. That's a HUGE difference. You also wrote that his issue was with an Islamic government and that he wanted them to have a 'Christian' one. What you wrote implies that Romney is so bigoted against Islam that he'd stop a democratic process. If that was not your intent, please clarify what you really meant. The exact problem is that we don't know what course of action Romney would have preferred. Defacer's posts are speculative, I'll give you that, but if you criticize policy by the current administration you should try and come up with an alternative, especially as a presidential candidate. American presidents don't have control over internal affairs in Egypt, and the only real decision they can make is behind what group they place their support. Obama went with 'wait and see' and then threw his support behind the protestors once it was pretty clear they were going to overthrow Mubarak. I think its fair to say that almost any American president would have done the same thing, because its the smart move to make in this situation. Romneys criticism is completely unfounded and extremely shallow; magically wishing for islamists not to come to power doesn't do anything. (Also, on an unrelated note, the reports of islamists in the egyptian government are caricatures of the actual situation. You have to realize that the muslim brotherhood is one of very few broad organized movements in Egypt, and that they have left a lot of their islamist roots behind them. The fact is that combining islam with democracy scares western politicians and western voters, while it simultaneously is the only way actual democratic institutions will ever develop in the middle east. You encapsulate fringe groups in the democratic process, which will then either disappear because they offer no tangible solutions, or they move to more mainstream positions.) Romney was disappointed in the election results and thinks that Obama should have pushed for more democratic reforms prior to the Arab spring. What is "completely unfounded and extremely shallow" about that? How should he have pushed for more democratic reforms exactly? He doesn't have control of the legislative process in Egypt and unless they're hoping to arm twist the Egyptians with economic clout or boots on the ground, there's no real way to push for democratic reforms except talk... and they can always ignore talk. Pushing for more democratic reforms prior to Arab spring is basically saying that I would've done the same thing only faster and better. Easy to say on the sidelines.
Yes, Romney was saying that Obama should have used more raw political power (just talk) to push for more democratic reforms. It was a minor criticism of Obama that for some reason people have decided to latch onto as if it were a big deal.
|
On July 31 2012 01:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 19:46 kwizach wrote:On July 30 2012 15:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 13:14 Defacer wrote:On July 30 2012 09:07 Signet wrote:On July 30 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On July 30 2012 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 30 2012 06:03 Derez wrote:On July 30 2012 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Republican saber ratting begins: [quote] Source I don't get this at all. He basicly endorses a bush neo-conservative foreign policy everytime he says something on foreign matters. How does anyone think that was acceptable policy that needs to be repeated? No matter how you turn it, bush's foreign policy cost the US many lives, boatloads of money and a whole lot of absolutely nothing in return. It was an abject failure that destroyed US soft power, degraded your hard power and served no strategic purpose. The middle east is an even bigger mess, Israel is probably less safe and America itself probably is too. I don't understand how a major party can still spout this rhetoric and not be called out on it. I realize that the campaigning comes with a lot of 'fake' opposition and that its probably not the actual position Romney will take once in office, but still, imagine another 4 years of bush's foreign policy. It'll have a far more negative impact on your country than all the damage Obama is sometimes alleged of doing by the right. Keep in mind that presidents have near full control of their foreign policy and very little control on economic development. Could you explain the benefit of explicitly stating that a military option is off the table? Why would he have to explain that? That's a pretty blatant false dilemma man. The article was about Romney declaring that he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that he considers all options on the table. I assume the criticism wasn't over Romney not wanting Iran to have nukes. That leaves the 'all options on the table' point. Many conservatives have the hilarious belief that Obama is some sort of hippie who will avoid war no matter what that ends up costing. Romney's comments are meant to paint himself as a contrast to that boogeyman of a Democratic president. Honestly, there are plenty of critics on the left that consider Obama more hawkish (but more effective) than George W. Bush. Romney is criticizing his fictionalized version of Obama's foreign policy, but the both their foreign policies are essentially the same. Romney's campaign has been doing this shit all along, with the most obvious example of 'You didn't build that' being taken out of context. Edit: Although, recent comments made by Romney and his campaign suggest that he believes the Obama administration bungled the 'Arab Spring', suggesting that America shouldn't have allowed Islamic groups to rise to power, despite being elected democratically. Bush instigated the Iraq war, as part of a Neo-Con agenda to improve America's security and interest by spreading American democracy. Well, I guess Romney and the Neo-Con's want to amend that to American 'Christian' Democracy. It will be interesting to see how the debates go. Because it could indicate that Romney is more much of a Zionist than anyone previously thought. He's certainly selling himself that way. To clarify, his criticism was in Islamist (not Islamic) groups coming to power. “Clearly we’re disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments,” Romney said in the interview with Israel Hayom. “We’re very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world.” SourceIslamist is a blend of Islam and government so the worry is that countries that elect an Islamist government will turn into a theocracy. It also creates an internal problem between the secular military and the religious government - a common problem in the middle east. (The election) sets up what is likely to be an uneasy ruling alliance between two longtime rivals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian military, which has been the country's backbone of power and has ruled Egypt since former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down last year. But the Brotherhood's long power struggle with military is far from over. The military has pledged to hand over power to Mr. Morsi by the end of the month. But Mr. Morsi will assume a presidency crippled by military-imposed constitutional changes that have stripped the office of most of its powers. Mr. Morsi faces daunting challenges and a divided nation, where many are deeply suspicious of the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda. "They definitely have an agenda to impose Islamic Shariah," said Ahmed Saied, head of the secular Free Egyptians Party, referring to Islam's legal code. "We are dealing with people who are full of question marks and I really don't know where they want to take the country. I'm not comfortable with this." SourceSo, the situation is a bit more complex than you are making out to be. It's exactly as Defacer said though - those groups were elected democratically. What exactly should the US have done, according to Romney, if it wasn't letting the people decide for themselves who they wanted to elect? No, Defacer said the Romney didn't like that an Islamic government was elected. He said that Romney wanted Arab countries to be "American Christian Democracies". All Romney said was that he was disappointed that Islamist leaders were elected. That's it. He never said we should have stopped them from being elected.
Romney did say Obama "abandoned the freedom agenda" of Bush (talking about Bush "[urging] [...] Mubarak to move toward a more democratic posture"), which is such a vague and baseless criticism that you have to wonder, as I wrote - what exactly should the US have done?
edit: and by the way, I'll bet you anything that if Obama had adopted even a mildly tougher stance towards Mubarak prior to the Arab spring, urging him for more reforms, the Republicans and Romney in particular would have been up in arms protesting against Obama "betraying US allies".
|
Despite telling ABC News over the weekend he’d be “happy” to hand over more information on his past tax returns, Mitt Romney has yet to follow up on their request.
Romney has steadfastly refused to release any tax returns from earlier than last year despite pressure from both Democrats and Republicans alike to shed more light on his finances. However, he said in an interview on Sunday he’d at least check whether he ever paid a lower rate than the 13.9% from 2010.
“I haven’t calculated that,” Romney told ABC’s David Muir. “I’m happy to go back and look, but my view is I’ve paid all the taxes required by law. From time to time I’ve been audited as happens I think to other citizens as well and the accounting firm which prepares my taxes has done a very thorough and complete job pay taxes as legally due.”
But ABC says Romney officials have not gotten back to them on whether Romney ever paid a lower tax rate than 13.9% despite their repeated queries. Instead, they received a rehash of Romney’s already disclosed taxes and charitable donations from 2010, suggesting that Romney may have overpromised in his interview what his campaign was willing to reveal.
“Mitt Romney has paid his taxes in full compliance with U.S. law, and he has paid 100 percent of what he has owed,” Romney spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told ABC News in a statement. “As has previously been reported, in 2011, the Romneys will pay more than $3.2 million in taxes on $20.9 million in mostly investment income and will have donated more than $4 million to charity. In 2010, The Romneys paid more than $3 million in taxes on $21.6 million in mostly investment income and donated nearly $3 million to charity.”
Source
|
Romney really needed to just stay home and hope enough people didn't like Obama. His attempt to make himself look foreign-capable makes me smile.
Palestinians attack Mitt Romney for 'racist' commentsPalestinians attack Mitt Romney for 'racist' comments
"As you come here and you see the GDP [Gross Domestic Product] per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000 dollars, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality," Mr Romney is reported to have said.
He added: "And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognise the power of at least culture and a few other things."
|
It could just be a clumsy statement. Or it could be a culturally/religiously biased statement. I don't think it's racist.
Culture surely affects economic activity. However, it would have been better to point out that Palestinians are oppressed (both by elements inside and outside of their nation) and stuck in a cycle of war, which negatively affects their politics, their cultural environment and their economy.
|
The bias and bluntness of that statement show that Romney has absolutely no qualms about saying what the audience wants to hear. Unfortunately for him, foreign affairs requires subtlety. If the situation in Israel/Palestine was so obvious and clear there would not be the ongoing conflict. He just outright dismisses everything that is not pro-Israel as being a "culture" difference. He is clearly completely one-sided and this is not beneficial for a sophisticated foreign policy.
The last time the world had a US president who thought in such terms we got royally butt fucked, lord knows we don't need it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
