|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +You have no idea what you're talking about. Of course filibusters and obstructionism are nothing new. What's new is the immense escalation of such to the point where governance has been put on a backlog. I disagree with you too. You know nothing. Again, Republicans are proud that their representatives have kept the Obama administration from even more fully implementing it's dumbass agenda, and since we got rewarded for it 2 years ago and it looks like we're going to again, guess you're just shit out of luck on your argument's practicality.
I don't give a damn if Republicans are proud of their representatives. The point is that Democratic obstructionism was never near the same level. Learn how to argue about what's being argued.
Show nested quote +Of course you're supposed to care what a guy like Mike Lofgren has to say. The guy's been working for the Republicans in Congress since the Reagan Administration and has had front-row seats to all budget talks. You're so partisan you can't even take to heart the facts laid out by a member of your own party if it hurts your feelings. Of course you're supposed to care what a guy like Zell Miller has to say. The guy was a Democratic lieutenant governor for 16 years, a governor for 8, and a Senator for 5. He started out as a politician in the Eisenhower administration and had a front-row seat to Democratic national policy from 2000 - 2005. You're so partisan you can't even take to heart the facts (learn the difference between a fact and an opinion, please) laid out by a member of your own party if it hurts your feelings. This chickenshit game can be played either way, and so easily.
Once again this is totally irrelevant because I'm not the one justifying my party's actions and trying to construe facts.
Show nested quote +Iran is not close to having an operational nuclear weapon. I'm pretty sure Joe Biden clearly laid out the details during the Vice Presidential debate. If they ever did get dangerously close, America would not sit around. Until then, we will not sacrifice American lives to satisfy some stupid war hunger you conservatives hold. Romney-Ryan haven't even said what they would do differently. Now here's where the funny comes in. You said earlier that I know nothing? Joe Biden made a complete fool of himself. His comments that it would take quite a while and an effort just to design and construct a warhead = grade A ignorance. You can get plans for a gun-type warhead on the internet. Iran has access to the same plans that North Korea and Pakistan used. These types of warheads are technically quite simple. It would not take Iran years and years to construct a warhead. Once they have enough uranium, it would take months. No one said anything about going to war. Calm down. Put down the George Bush voodoo doll and cry some more about warmongering. Damn you must be desperate if that's the crapola you're pulling out. Have fun with your one-term loser Barack once he goes back to some cushy 1% job in Chicago. Maybe Michelle can get that same $300,000 a year job she had at the hospital, that position that was created specifically for her, and was never filled after she left to move with Barack to Washington? Talk about the rich getting richer...
lol you're so funny. How can you guys even criticize Obama's foreign policy when no one, not even Romney-Ryan, have recommended different courses of plausible action short of military intervention.
|
I don't give a damn if Republicans are proud of their representatives. The point is that Democratic obstructionism was never near the same level. Learn how to argue about what's being argued.
I'm not arguing with you about that, you just attach some significance to this fact when there is none. The results have shown that.
Once again this is totally irrelevant because I'm not the one justifying my party's actions and trying to construe facts.
Then Mike Lofgren is irrelevant too. Or is it a double standard? Are only ex-Republicans believable, while ex-Democrats aren't?
Do you really think you saying "I'm not defending Democrats and you're defending Republicans" means anything at all? A man who turns on his former party and criticizes them using the exact same terminology and reasoning as his new party has used is someone with an axe to grind who is not credible. Republicans say Democrats are pussy America-haters; oh look, a Democrat who says the same thing! It must be... bullshit. Democrats say Republicans are pigs with top hats jumping right out of a Soviet agitprop poster from the 20s; oh look, a Republican who says the same thing! It must be... bullshit.
lol you're so funny. How can you guys even criticize Obama's foreign policy when no one, not even Romney-Ryan, have recommended different courses of plausible action short of military intervention.
Look out for them goalposts, they be a-shiftin'!
First it was some nice pure spleen about warmongering conservatives, now it's "Oh you guys don't have a different plan at all!" Romney has said he will try to be tougher on sanctions, and Romney never would have kept his mouth shut for a week the way Obama did during the Iranian protests in 2009. That was totally shameful. If the president can't stand up and forcefully argue for freedom when a country is killing 10,000 of its citizens for the crime of protesting a stolen election, he doesn't deserve to be president.
|
On October 22 2012 06:10 xDaunt wrote:
So what, do we have wait until after Obama loses for any democrat or liberal in this thread to offer one criticism related to how bad of a leader he has been? Hell, I won't even have to ask then, because democrats won't be able to throw Obama under the bus fast enough after the election.
Pretty sure we all criticize multiple elements of Obamacare and recognize that he blew too much political capital on healthcare reform, not realizing the reaction it would receive from a cash-fomented tea party. And he's also often criticized for his decisions on civil liberties. Stop pretending there's Obama heroworship, because there hasn't been since he actually took office.
The reason it doesn't come up in an election thread because Romney doesn't talk about the latter (and has indeed said he didn't oppose anything Obama has done regarding extending executive powers, but that was during the primaries so he may have just been lying) and has even less interesting, more status-quo ideas for healthcare reform.
On October 22 2012 06:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:
First it was some nice pure spleen about warmongering conservatives, now it's "Oh you guys don't have a different plan at all!" Romney has said he will try to be tougher on sanctions, and Romney never would have kept his mouth shut for a week the way Obama did during the Iranian protests in 2009. That was totally shameful. If the president can't stand up and forcefully argue for freedom when a country is killing 10,000 of its citizens for the crime of protesting a stolen election, he doesn't deserve to be president.
Considering the sanctions are already mind-bogglingly crippling I'm not sure being tougher on sanctions will do anything. Also, you're ascribing motives to Romney that I doubt exist-he wouldn't have risked in 2009 further destabilizing oil prices (neither would McCain). The concrete things we know about Romney and foreign policy are that he hates the "apology tour" and...wouldn't do what Obama did. No matter what it is.
Romney doesn't do the whole stand up and forcefully argue thing, anyway, righteous indignation plays poorly from him.
Edit2: Sanctions are terrible foreign policy versus terrorism unless carefully structured because as anyone who has done any research into Bin Laden knows they're one of the major offenses Al Qaeda has cited against the Western World vis a vis killing about "900,000" (probably more like 200-400,000) women and children in the Middle East during the 80s-90s.
|
On October 22 2012 06:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:
First it was some nice pure spleen about warmongering conservatives, now it's "Oh you guys don't have a different plan at all!" Romney has said he will try to be tougher on sanctions, and Romney never would have kept his mouth shut for a week the way Obama did during the Iranian protests in 2009. That was totally shameful. If the president can't stand up and forcefully argue for freedom when a country is killing 10,000 of its citizens for the crime of protesting a stolen election, he doesn't deserve to be president.
Wat? Where are those numbers coming from?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 22 2012 06:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +I don't give a damn if Republicans are proud of their representatives. The point is that Democratic obstructionism was never near the same level. Learn how to argue about what's being argued. I'm not arguing with you about that, you just attach some significance to this fact when there is none. The results have shown that.
Actually yes, yes you were arguing to me about that:
I don't recall many complaints about obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism re: judicial filibusters during the Bush Administration, or the Democrats doing exactly the same thing from 2004-2006 that the Republicans have done from 2008 to now.
Show nested quote +Once again this is totally irrelevant because I'm not the one justifying my party's actions and trying to construe facts. Then Mike Lofgren is irrelevant too. Or is it a double standard? Are only ex-Republicans believable, while ex-Democrats aren't?
What the flying hell are you even talking about? I didn't say that I didn't believe him. I'm saying I'm not the one trying to deny the facts laid out by members of my own party. Where in any of my posts have I said that I disregard and disagree with any of Miller's statements? I'm not you, I am well aware of the problems with the Democratic party and I don't attempt to justify any of them. You, on the other hand...
Show nested quote +lol you're so funny. How can you guys even criticize Obama's foreign policy when no one, not even Romney-Ryan, have recommended different courses of plausible action short of military intervention. Look out for them goalposts, they be a-shiftin'! First it was some nice pure spleen about warmongering conservatives, now it's "Oh you guys don't have a different plan at all!" Romney has said he will try to be tougher on sanctions, and Romney never would have kept his mouth shut for a week the way Obama did during the Iranian protests in 2009. That was totally shameful. If the president can't stand up and forcefully argue for freedom when a country is killing 10,000 of its citizens for the crime of protesting a stolen election, he doesn't deserve to be president.
Conservatives are warmongers, as has been shown many times throughout the 900 pages in this thread.
Yeeaah, of course Romney said he'd be tougher on sanctions. It's not really possible to put tougher, more productive sanctions on Iran.
I have no argument on the protests other than the fact that you guys blow it out of the water and Republican representatives were caught reacting the same way as Obama. I don't have to attempt to justify Obama's actions just because I'm not Republican.
|
On October 22 2012 06:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On October 22 2012 05:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 21 2012 16:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 21 2012 14:07 sunprince wrote:
I doubt that a Romney victory would result in Democratic retaliation. The Democrats have a long history of refusing to play hardball due to some combination of stupidity, naievete, and optimism.
Yeah, shame Democrats aren't assholes. I'm still waiting for one democrat or liberal in this thread to find any fault with Obama for his inability to get along with republicans. Romney will get along better with democrats better than Obama has gotten along with republicans simply because Romney is a better and more effective executive and politician. I'm guessing that he'll fall somewhere between W Bush and Clinton in terms of effecting bipartisanship. Eventually, democrats and liberals are going to realize just how bad of a president Obama has been. Meanwhile, in the real world, when Obama came into office Republicans in Congress made it their leading strategy to camp their ground and refuse to compromise with him on his key policies. That's a documented fact, not an opinion - and it has been presented to you several times in this thread already. Feel free to acknowledge it whenever you want. I have acknowledged them numerous times, as have others. 1) Republicans were willing to work with Obama in 2009 and tried to. However, Obama, being the arrogant shit that he is, immediately started to poison the well, beginning with the stimulus package talks. Through, all he did was ruthelessly demagogue republicans on issue after issue. How exactly is that supposed to build bipartisanship? Go read Woodward's book. He agrees with me. Not with you. He blames Obama more than anyone else for the current partisan failings in Washington.
No, Republicans were not willing to work with Obama in 2009 and certainly did not try to. In fact, it was the exact opposite. Part of Eric Cantor's strategy for the Republican party to come back was to prevent any Republican from breaking ranks and compromise/work with the President. Woodward's book focuses on the debt crisis of last year, and while he does blame both sides for failure to reach a grand bargain he certainly does not blame Obama "for the partisan failings in Washington" in general. If you do want to read books on the current partisanship in Washington, I suggest you start with It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism by political scientists Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein. Spoiler alert: "the Republicans are the problem".
On October 22 2012 06:04 xDaunt wrote:
2) Bipartisanship does not mean republicans cave every time Obama wants to pass something. Bipartisanship means compromise where there legitimately is a middle ground to be had. Obama's approach to healthcare reform completely ignored this reality, resulting in arguably the most partisan legislation ever passed.
Nobody is claiming that's what bipartisanship means. Of course, since you like to argue against strawmen, you're going to pretend like that's our position. Obama's approach to healthcare aimed to accomplish goals dear to both Democrats and Republicans while being largely based on conservative ideas, values, and past propositions and legislation. That you're calling it "arguably the most partisan legislation ever passed" is a testament to your unwillingness to look at facts without your partisan goggles.
On October 22 2012 06:04 xDaunt wrote:
3) As I have gone blue in the face saying, all that Obama had to do to get some republican votes was offer some key republicans a role in drafting his key legislation. Every single president before Obama has done this, including W and Clinton. Obama didn't. Getting some votes from the opposing party is really fucking easy if you actually make a little bit of an effort to get them. Obama's problem is that he never did try. He never put republicans in a position where there were pressures to not vote as a block. This is just political stupidity.
It's really easy, except when the leaders of the opposing party make it their defining strategy to oppose every single one of your key legislations.
On October 22 2012 06:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 05:54 kwizach wrote:On October 22 2012 05:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 21 2012 16:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 21 2012 14:07 sunprince wrote:
I doubt that a Romney victory would result in Democratic retaliation. The Democrats have a long history of refusing to play hardball due to some combination of stupidity, naievete, and optimism.
Yeah, shame Democrats aren't assholes. I'm still waiting for one democrat or liberal in this thread to find any fault with Obama for his inability to get along with republicans. Romney will get along better with democrats better than Obama has gotten along with republicans simply because Romney is a better and more effective executive and politician. I'm guessing that he'll fall somewhere between W Bush and Clinton in terms of effecting bipartisanship. Eventually, democrats and liberals are going to realize just how bad of a president Obama has been. Meanwhile, in the real world, when Obama came into office Republicans in Congress made it their leading strategy to camp their ground and refuse to compromise with him on his key policies. That's a documented fact, not an opinion - and it has been presented to you several times in this thread already. Feel free to acknowledge it whenever you want. Most Republicans are very proud that their representatives actually represented them and stood up on the principles we voted them into office to fight for. I guess it was a huge public repudiation of Republican policy when in 2010 the Republicans won the most House seats since 1946. I don't recall many complaints about obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism re: judicial filibusters during the Bush Administration, or the Democrats doing exactly the same thing from 2004-2006 that the Republicans have done from 2008 to now.
Souma has debunked that claim of yours several times already with his graph, but you keep making it. The amount of filibustering that has been going on since the Republicans have been in the minority is unprecedented, end of story. If I filibuster once a year and you filibuster 265 times a year, yes we're both filibustering but what matters is how often and how much we do it. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think I read that there have been more cases of filibuster since the Republicans got in the minority than in the rest of the history of the U.S. combined.
|
On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties!
This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon.
|
On October 22 2012 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties! This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon.
Maybe if democrats were busy fixing the real problems that America has rather than imagining racism or wars on women, they would be doing better in elections.
Speaking of which, did y'all hear about Sandra Fluke's grand contribution to the Obama campaign in Reno, Nevada yesterday? She hosted a rally that attracted a whole 10 people! Dat war on women .... women are definitely feeling it!
|
On October 22 2012 07:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties! This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon. Maybe if democrats were busy fixing the real problems that America has rather than imagining racism or wars on women, they would be doing better in elections. Speaking of which, did y'all hear about Sandra Fluke's grand contribution to the Obama campaign in Reno, Nevada yesterday? She hosted a rally that attracted a whole 10 people! Dat war on women .... women are definitely feeling it!
Racial and gender inequality are two of the biggest issues in America. The Democrats don't do a very good job at addressing them, and in the process of small gains tend to quash genuine progressives, but at least they generally don't try to make things worse.
|
What the flying hell are you even talking about? I didn't say that I didn't believe him. I'm saying I'm not the one trying to deny the facts laid out by members of my own party. Where in any of my posts have I said that I disregard and disagree with any of Miller's statements? I'm not you, I am well aware of the problems with the Democratic party and I don't attempt to justify any of them. You, on the other hand...
You're laboring under the misapprehension that Lofgren is laying out facts, when all he's laying out is his opinion. You're also laboring under the misapprehension that I care or that it matters if you believe Miller or not. He is just a prominent example of how turncoats simply parrot whatever their new masters were saying before they turned. Lofgren is another. They deal in caricatures and stereotypes.
Actually yes, yes you were arguing to me about that:
No, we weren't. I said, once, that Democrats said what they were doing was out of conviction, and it's a double standard for Democrats (not you, Democrats) to criticize Republicans for doing the same thing for the same stated reason. I have said multiple times that your argument is irrelevant and the voters have already rejected it and are doing so again.
Conservatives are warmongers, as has been shown many times throughout the 900 pages in this thread.
Since you have nothing useful to say and prefer boring insults, have a nice loss in the election! I'll enjoy your tears.
On October 22 2012 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties! This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon.
Can you prove that "far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level" oppose racism? Name me one Republican at the federal level who doesn't oppose racism. Name me one Democrat too. There aren't any, of course.
The preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act does need overturned. It isn't 1965 and it is only used nowadays to preserve racially gerrymandered districts, the very premise of which undermines the idea of equality. There are powerful institutions today - the same ones who strongly support the act - ready and willing to file lawsuits at the slightest excuse if southern states try to disenfranchise blacks (and these days, Hispanics). Racially gerrymandered districts are not enfranchising.
Edit2: Sanctions are terrible foreign policy versus terrorism unless carefully structured because as anyone who has done any research into Bin Laden knows they're one of the major offenses Al Qaeda has cited against the Western World vis a vis killing about "900,000" (probably more like 200-400,000) women and children in the Middle East during the 80s-90s.
Yeah, and that's a good example of Muslims blaming the West for what Muslims did. What he was talking about was deaths in Iraq from malnutrition and disease in the 1990s.
Of course, the sanctions were blamed for the deaths. Never mind that Iraqi Kurdistan had a mortality rate similar to that of Greece during those years. Why? Iraqi Kurdistan was under the same sanctions. What was the difference?
The difference was that the Oil-For-Food money was given directly to Kurdish officials, and in the rest of the country it was given to Saddam.
Saddam built palaces with it. Iraqi Kurds bought food and medicine.
Their fault, but we get the blame. And some people think terrorists actually have a legitimate gripe. They're a fucking joke.
|
On October 22 2012 07:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties! This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon. Maybe if democrats were busy fixing the real problems that America has rather than imagining racism or wars on women, they would be doing better in elections. Speaking of which, did y'all hear about Sandra Fluke's grand contribution to the Obama campaign in Reno, Nevada yesterday? She hosted a rally that attracted a whole 10 people! Dat war on women .... women are definitely feeling it!
Politicians on both sides of the aisle aren't focused enough on the real problems America has. No one will touch the sacred cow of Social Security in their first term or in the House and no one will dare talk about cutting Medicare (both party's lambasting the others' cuts to it); if neither of those two things happen due to the elderly holding the country hostage no amount of lower taxes, cutting "wasteful spending," or (reasonable) economic growth will bail us out when we have 2-3 workers per retiree.
All the same, I'd rather have the party that at least tried to do some entitlement reform, especially if they're going to be a 2nd term president because then they might actually get something done.
On October 22 2012 09:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Yeah, and that's a good example of Muslims blaming the West for what Muslims did. What he was talking about was deaths in Iraq from malnutrition and disease in the 1990s.
Of course, the sanctions were blamed for the deaths. Never mind that Iraqi Kurdistan had a mortality rate similar to that of Greece during those years. Why? Iraqi Kurdistan was under the same sanctions. What was the difference?
The difference was that the Oil-For-Food money was given directly to Kurdish officials, and in the rest of the country it was given to Saddam.
Saddam built palaces with it. Iraqi Kurds bought food and medicine.
Their fault, but we get the blame. And some people think terrorists actually have a legitimate gripe. They're a fucking joke.
Look, I'm not saying they have a totally valid case, but severe sanctions are terrible foreign policy for fighting terror; it is probably the second best propaganda tool Al Qaeda had after troops in Saudi Arabia. Do we really want to hand even more propaganda tools to terrorists?
Edit: Killing leaders? Makes sense if you can efficiently dodge martyrdom. Drone strikes on compounds? Probably pushing it there, to be honest.
Sanctions make sense in situations where you can efficiently target them (like current Iranian sanctions) or arguably in cases where the actual people of the country are the ones pushing for a course of action. This is all kind of silly anyway, because Ryan and Romney haven't said what "more severe sanctions" actually means. I mean, Iran is all kinds of screwed up from the current ones.
|
On October 22 2012 06:16 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 05:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 21 2012 10:17 sam!zdat wrote:
ugh, the impending collapse of your entire economic paradigm is not a minor inconvenience
2008 was just the beginning
how can everybody spend all their time talking about how fast the world is changing and then expect the world not to change??? Collapse has been impending for 140 years now no it hasn't edit: I don't believe that you are a sincerely motivated participant in rational discourse, so I'm not really interested in engaging in said discourse with you. For the benefit of others who might be interested, however, the reason your point is facile is because there wasn't a revolution in the mode of production during that period (this has only begun to happen in the last few years) and so there was no impending collapse. Capitalism is the best way to run an industrial society - we are no longer an industrial society. I'll say it again, because I think this cuts to the heart of the matter: how can people talk so much about how things are changing, and expect things not to change?
Projection is a fascinating phenomenon.
The collapse of the plutocracy and the bourgeoisie hasn't been impending for 140 years? Quick, someone tell Karl. He'll be very disappointed.
You betray just how ignorant you are by saying that there hasn't been a revolution in the mode of production during that period. There were two, maybe three, depending how you look at it.
We aren't an industrial society? We may not be an industrial-dominant society the way we were before the computer, but we are certainly still an industrial society.
I'll say this because it actually cuts to the heart of the matter: things are changing within the paradigm, but nothing externally or internally threatens its existence. Maybe in your head it does, but not in the real world.
|
On October 22 2012 09:04 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties! This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon. Maybe if democrats were busy fixing the real problems that America has rather than imagining racism or wars on women, they would be doing better in elections. Speaking of which, did y'all hear about Sandra Fluke's grand contribution to the Obama campaign in Reno, Nevada yesterday? She hosted a rally that attracted a whole 10 people! Dat war on women .... women are definitely feeling it! Racial and gender inequality are two of the biggest issues in America. The Democrats don't do a very good job at addressing them, and in the process of small gains tend to quash genuine progressives, but at least they generally don't try to make things worse.
I can understand racial inequality to an extent ('biggest issues' though?), but gender inequality seems very exaggerated. If you elaborate more it would be easier for me to understand where you are coming from.
|
On October 22 2012 09:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties! This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon. Maybe if democrats were busy fixing the real problems that America has rather than imagining racism or wars on women, they would be doing better in elections. Speaking of which, did y'all hear about Sandra Fluke's grand contribution to the Obama campaign in Reno, Nevada yesterday? She hosted a rally that attracted a whole 10 people! Dat war on women .... women are definitely feeling it! Politicians on both sides of the aisle aren't focused enough on the real problems America has. No one will touch the sacred cow of Social Security in their first term or in the House and no one will dare talk about cutting Medicare (both party's lambasting the others' cuts to it); if neither of those two things happen due to the elderly holding the country hostage no amount of lower taxes, cutting "wasteful spending," or (reasonable) economic growth will bail us out when we have 2-3 workers per retiree. All the same, I'd rather have the party that at least tried to do some entitlement reform, especially if they're going to be a 2nd term president because then they might actually get something done.
So why aren't you voting republican? They are the only party that has actively pushed real entitlement reform (see Paul Ryan).
|
On October 22 2012 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:04 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties! This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon. Maybe if democrats were busy fixing the real problems that America has rather than imagining racism or wars on women, they would be doing better in elections. Speaking of which, did y'all hear about Sandra Fluke's grand contribution to the Obama campaign in Reno, Nevada yesterday? She hosted a rally that attracted a whole 10 people! Dat war on women .... women are definitely feeling it! Racial and gender inequality are two of the biggest issues in America. The Democrats don't do a very good job at addressing them, and in the process of small gains tend to quash genuine progressives, but at least they generally don't try to make things worse. I can understand racial inequality to an extent ('biggest issues' though?), but gender inequality seems very exaggerated. If you elaborate more it would be easier for me to understand where you are coming from.
Every democrat ad that I see now (and there is a lot of them because I am in Colorado) furthers this idea that the republicans are waging a war on women. It is a total farce, yet Obama and the democrats are staking the entire election upon it.
|
On October 22 2012 09:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties! This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon. Maybe if democrats were busy fixing the real problems that America has rather than imagining racism or wars on women, they would be doing better in elections. Speaking of which, did y'all hear about Sandra Fluke's grand contribution to the Obama campaign in Reno, Nevada yesterday? She hosted a rally that attracted a whole 10 people! Dat war on women .... women are definitely feeling it! Politicians on both sides of the aisle aren't focused enough on the real problems America has. No one will touch the sacred cow of Social Security in their first term or in the House and no one will dare talk about cutting Medicare (both party's lambasting the others' cuts to it); if neither of those two things happen due to the elderly holding the country hostage no amount of lower taxes, cutting "wasteful spending," or (reasonable) economic growth will bail us out when we have 2-3 workers per retiree. All the same, I'd rather have the party that at least tried to do some entitlement reform, especially if they're going to be a 2nd term president because then they might actually get something done. So why aren't you voting republican? They are the only party that has actively pushed real entitlement reform (see Paul Ryan).
Walked back on it. The problem isn't entitlements for people under 55, the problem is those over 55, and those "will not change." And Romney has literally only talked about "let's not have vouchers."
And Obamacare is entitlement reform, whether you like it or not. Imperfect reform, but better than not having it at all.
Edit2: Also, the only way S.S. is getting the changes it needs is in the 2nd term of a president, and it needs them relatively soon or they won't be doable even IN the 2nd term.
|
On October 22 2012 09:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:17 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties! This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon. Maybe if democrats were busy fixing the real problems that America has rather than imagining racism or wars on women, they would be doing better in elections. Speaking of which, did y'all hear about Sandra Fluke's grand contribution to the Obama campaign in Reno, Nevada yesterday? She hosted a rally that attracted a whole 10 people! Dat war on women .... women are definitely feeling it! Politicians on both sides of the aisle aren't focused enough on the real problems America has. No one will touch the sacred cow of Social Security in their first term or in the House and no one will dare talk about cutting Medicare (both party's lambasting the others' cuts to it); if neither of those two things happen due to the elderly holding the country hostage no amount of lower taxes, cutting "wasteful spending," or (reasonable) economic growth will bail us out when we have 2-3 workers per retiree. All the same, I'd rather have the party that at least tried to do some entitlement reform, especially if they're going to be a 2nd term president because then they might actually get something done. So why aren't you voting republican? They are the only party that has actively pushed real entitlement reform (see Paul Ryan). Walked back on it. The problem isn't entitlements for people under 55, the problem is those over 55, and those "will not change." And Romney has literally only talked about "let's not have vouchers." And Obamacare is entitlement reform, whether you like it or not. Imperfect reform, but better than not having it at all.
It is the wrong kind of reform. Sure, it may be revenue neutral for 10 years, but it explodes in cost after that, complicating an already bad situation.
|
On October 22 2012 09:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 09:04 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties! This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon. Maybe if democrats were busy fixing the real problems that America has rather than imagining racism or wars on women, they would be doing better in elections. Speaking of which, did y'all hear about Sandra Fluke's grand contribution to the Obama campaign in Reno, Nevada yesterday? She hosted a rally that attracted a whole 10 people! Dat war on women .... women are definitely feeling it! Racial and gender inequality are two of the biggest issues in America. The Democrats don't do a very good job at addressing them, and in the process of small gains tend to quash genuine progressives, but at least they generally don't try to make things worse. I can understand racial inequality to an extent ('biggest issues' though?), but gender inequality seems very exaggerated. If you elaborate more it would be easier for me to understand where you are coming from. Every democrat ad that I see now (and there is a lot of them because I am in Colorado) furthers this idea that the republicans are waging a war on women. It is a total farce, yet Obama and the democrats are staking the entire election upon it.
Of course it is. Just like most of the things the GOP have tried to create are false ("we built it" ringing any bells?). It's politics, especially in the current situation where Super PACs and the like can aggressively push something provably false to attack on one candidate (and the biggest, most active Super PACs are by and large GOP ones).
|
On October 22 2012 09:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Can you prove that "far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level" oppose racism? Name me one Republican at the federal level who doesn't oppose racism. Name me one Democrat too. There aren't any, of course.
The preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act does need overturned. It isn't 1965 and it is only used nowadays to preserve racially gerrymandered districts, the very premise of which undermines the idea of equality. There are powerful institutions today - the same ones who strongly support the act - ready and willing to file lawsuits at the slightest excuse if southern states try to disenfranchise blacks (and these days, Hispanics). Racially gerrymandered districts are not enfranchising.
I'm talking about legislatively. I don't care if politicians are nice people or not so much as I care about their policies. Look at LBJ: he was certainly a repugnant person, but he did a good job at pushing through the Civil Rights Act.
And in 2012 there are several states not covered by preclearance fighting battles to make it harder to vote. If anything, the VRA should be expanded, not reduced.
|
On October 22 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 09:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 09:17 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:On October 22 2012 06:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:
One party in America talks about racism all day long.
One party doesn't.
One party explicitly uses racial solidarity to get votes.
One party doesn't.
One party repeatedly accuses the other party of racism, as a fearmonger tactic.
One party doesn't.
One party calls blacks who vote for the other party Uncle Toms.
One party doesn't.
One party's entire history up to the 1970s consisted of defending slavery.
One party was founded for the specific purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing slavery.
One party ruled the South for 100 years after the Civil War and instituted Jim Crow and voted against the Civil Rights acts.
One party provided the majority of votes for the Civil Rights acts.
One party had a Senator from West Virginia who was a recruiter for the KKK, said it was a youthful indiscretion, and was never held to account.
One party forced one of its Senators to resign his leadership positions and seniority in their caucus after he made the very stupid comment that the country would have been better off if the segregationist candidate in 1948 had been elected.
Guess those parties! This whole business of calling people who oppose racism (which is of course not all Democrats, but far, far more Democrats than Republicans on the Federal level) the real racists would be funny if not for the fact it has so much traction in real life that we'll probably see the Roberts Court overturn the preclearance portion of the Voting Rights Act soon. Maybe if democrats were busy fixing the real problems that America has rather than imagining racism or wars on women, they would be doing better in elections. Speaking of which, did y'all hear about Sandra Fluke's grand contribution to the Obama campaign in Reno, Nevada yesterday? She hosted a rally that attracted a whole 10 people! Dat war on women .... women are definitely feeling it! Politicians on both sides of the aisle aren't focused enough on the real problems America has. No one will touch the sacred cow of Social Security in their first term or in the House and no one will dare talk about cutting Medicare (both party's lambasting the others' cuts to it); if neither of those two things happen due to the elderly holding the country hostage no amount of lower taxes, cutting "wasteful spending," or (reasonable) economic growth will bail us out when we have 2-3 workers per retiree. All the same, I'd rather have the party that at least tried to do some entitlement reform, especially if they're going to be a 2nd term president because then they might actually get something done. So why aren't you voting republican? They are the only party that has actively pushed real entitlement reform (see Paul Ryan). Walked back on it. The problem isn't entitlements for people under 55, the problem is those over 55, and those "will not change." And Romney has literally only talked about "let's not have vouchers." And Obamacare is entitlement reform, whether you like it or not. Imperfect reform, but better than not having it at all. It is the wrong kind of reform. Sure, it may be revenue neutral for 10 years, but it explodes in cost after that, complicating an already bad situation.
Yes, but if you edit: don't repeal it entirely the whole thing gets shot to hell (at least if you leave the parts Romney wants to leave, which is all the benefits with none of the cuts as near as I can tell). Even with the whole thing off the books, unless you kill all the old people you'll have exploding healthcare costs at that time without a paradigm shift in healthcare. Competition isn't going to do that alone and eliminating all the research going on due to the ACA definitely isn't going to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
