Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Test Subject
#151 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 3:24 PM
Worst criminal ever.
Advertisement
Mad Poster
#152 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 8:38 PM
Quote: Originally posted by EliDawn

Anyway, 9/11 didn't happen while Bush was president. It was just before. Clinton was still in office during the incident. I remember because everyone was arguing about him having sex with what's-her-name and suddenly there were news reports about the twin towers collapsing. We were too distracted with Clinton's life to notice something was coming..
*Ahem* In case you missed what Oaktree wrote:

Bush - Sworn in as president on Jan 1, 2001

Attacks Sept 11, 2001 -- nine months after Bush became president.

Also, you might want to recheck your "facts" on the debt.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Theorist
#153 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 8:49 PM
I agree with what EliDawn said about the war, it hasn't been handled very well but the beginning was justifiable. They killed over 3000 people, should we have just sat there? Waited for other attacks?

Hi I'm Paul!
Mad Poster
#154 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 8:57 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Robodl95
I agree with what EliDawn said about the war, it hasn't been handled very well but the beginning was justifiable. They killed over 3000 people, should we have just sat there? Waited for other attacks?


You've heard the saying that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind? How about when two tigers fight, one is always injured and the other is always killed? How about two wrongs do not make a right?

I suppose there's an idea out there that we needed to send a message that it's not ok to attack our country. I'm not sure we did that nor did we go about it in a way that targeted the people that attacked us.

It wasn't a country that attacked the US, it was a group of terrorists. We attacked a country that supposedly had illegal weapons of mass destruction and it turned out to be hooey. In the process, we killed people who were not involved in the attacks. We got our own citizens killed over this and we killed off some potential allies. We also managed to alienate other nations when we disregarded the United Nations and did not wait for their decision or help.

I'm not sure what that war was really supposed to be about.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Theorist
#155 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 9:14 PM
Quote:
You've heard the saying that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind? How about when two tigers fight, one is always injured and the other is always killed? How about two wrongs do not make a right?

So then you believe that they shouldn't have been punished? I doubt that we could negotiate with them, and they definitely wouldn't turn themselves in. If a man kills a person then he would be sent to jail, or in extreme cases in certain states, sentenced to death. The war could have been executed in a better way.

Hi I'm Paul!
Mad Poster
#156 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 11:56 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Robodl95
So then you believe that they shouldn't have been punished? I doubt that we could negotiate with them, and they definitely wouldn't turn themselves in. If a man kills a person then he would be sent to jail, or in extreme cases in certain states, sentenced to death. The war could have been executed in a better way.


I agree - I don't believe there was any way to negotiate with them since their goal was simply to hurt us. There wasn't anything else that they wanted. I don't know how to answer your question. I struggle with the whole idea of punishment and rehabilitation in general. I have a lot of thoughts about it based on my own feelings and beliefs as well as new research in neurology. And is it even possible to rehabilitate a terrorist? I really don't know. I'm not sure if I care enough about them to want to see anyone put in the effort. That's not an easy thing for me to say.

What I was trying to say before was that fighting back leads to escalation and war. Sometimes, it just never ends. I wonder if there's another way to bring about peace. Simply ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Mad Poster
#157 Old 18th Nov 2011 at 1:37 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Robodl95
So then you believe that they shouldn't have been punished? I doubt that we could negotiate with them, and they definitely wouldn't turn themselves in. If a man kills a person then he would be sent to jail, or in extreme cases in certain states, sentenced to death. The war could have been executed in a better way.

Some of the 'punishments':
The war in Afghanistan, actually a military intervention authorized by Congress. Because Afghanistan was the home of Al-Qaeda. And also since they were there they decided to get rid of the Taliban which of course didn't work.
The Iraq war - Bush & Co. decided to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein. What did this have to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda? Let me know when you find out.
Osama bL was killed this year.

Some of the results of the punishments:
The projected cost of the Iraq war which I assume includes the interest on the borrowed money is between 2 and 3 trillion dollars. Yes, the Federal Reserve has so far given banks worldwide $16 trillion in bailout money, but 2 or 3 trillion is still a lot of money.
Between 103,536 and 113,125 Iraqi civilians have died in the Iraq war.

So who exactly got punished here?
Mad Poster
#158 Old 18th Nov 2011 at 7:31 AM
Quote: Originally posted by RoseCity
...The Iraq war - Bush & Co. decided to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein. What did this have to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda?...
I have the suspicion that we have not been told the truth behind why we went into either war. And I can't help wondering if the whole thing with Saddam Hussein had to do with older history going back to Bush senior.

Thank you for providing the facts.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Banned
#159 Old 22nd Nov 2011 at 12:53 PM
Why are we still funding the United Nations? Any guesses?
Mad Poster
#160 Old 22nd Nov 2011 at 1:43 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Birdhouse
Why are we still funding the United Nations? Any guesses?


Do you mean pay an assessment? Because every member is supposed to contribute. I looked it up - in 2011, the US provided 22% of the funding. So we don't pay all or even most of the funding. If you mean why are we still in it at all, I don't know - maybe since the US helped create the UN in the wake of WWII, it might be awkward to now decide to leave.
Theorist
#161 Old 22nd Nov 2011 at 5:36 PM
Right, and honestly the UN is a useful tool for the US and always has been. It's been a clever way to keep the Cold War cold, but it's also been a legal bludgeon to advance causes of liberalism and progressive thought around the world. UN Peacekeepers are always something of a stopgap measure, never quite enough with never quite the mandate to accomplish positive effects, but on the other hand they're pretty damned amazing when you think about some of the places they go where there's no military or police forces to sustain order. Part of the problem with the UN is the same issue the EU has: it's trying to accomplish its job without impressing sovereignty issues upon its members.
Scholar
#162 Old 12th Jun 2012 at 12:55 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
Right, and honestly the UN is a useful tool for the US and always has been. It's been a clever way to keep the Cold War cold, but it's also been a legal bludgeon to advance causes of liberalism and progressive thought around the world. UN Peacekeepers are always something of a stopgap measure, never quite enough with never quite the mandate to accomplish positive effects, but on the other hand they're pretty damned amazing when you think about some of the places they go where there's no military or police forces to sustain order. Part of the problem with the UN is the same issue the EU has: it's trying to accomplish its job without impressing sovereignty issues upon its members.


From, what I seen, it's just been keeping the Middle East and North Korea from sending up suspicious missiles.

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Theorist
#163 Old 12th Jun 2012 at 2:47 AM
Quote: Originally posted by BlakeS5678
From, what I seen, it's just been keeping the Middle East and North Korea from sending up suspicious missiles.

Then you haven't paid attention. First and foremost, it serves the purpose it was designed to serve. Instead of individual nations having diplomatic conflicts with no resolution in isolation, the UN provides an outlet for nations to band together for diplomatic resolutions. Genocide and bigotry certainly haven't been eradicated by the UN either, but dozens of conflicts in Africa (not to mention apartheid) were at least challenged by the UN at times when individual nations around the world would not. Meanwhile, poverty and disease have been radically impacted by the UN through agencies like WHO and UNICEF. There's also things like WIPO, the IMF and the World Bank - all of which take actions daily that probably alleviate a lot of things that might otherwise cause political stresses on nations that might otherwise lead to violent conflict.

But in any case, whether you agree with the UN or not it's incredibly disingenuous or ignorant to suggest it does nothing. I'm no cheerleader for the organization, it definitely has issues. But it does things, and some of those things are pretty amazing and important. Could it do a lot more? Could some of the things it does be done better? Are there instances where it's made things worse rather than better? Sure. It's political organization though, perfection isn't in the cards.
Retired
retired moderator
#164 Old 7th Nov 2012 at 7:47 AM Last edited by kiwi_tea : 7th Nov 2012 at 10:49 AM.
Obama term 1, severely abridged achievements:

Quote:
-trillions for the Wall Street speculators who wrecked the economy
-$700 billion in cuts to Medicare in his so-called healthcare "reform"
-the layoff of thousands of autoworkers, cuts to the wages of new workers by 50%, and the destruction of pensions
-no help for the millions whose homes have been stolen by the swindling of the mortgage lenders, and the refusal to hold the latter accountable
-the extension of tax cuts for the rich
-the extension and expansion of the Patriot Act and domestic spying
-billions in cuts to heating assistance for the poor and elderly
-billions in cuts to food stamps
-cuts to FEMA by hundreds of millions
-the destruction of public education by the Race to the Top program and the promotion of charter schools
-indefinite detention without trial
-the prosecution of more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined
-economic sanctions which have impoverished millions in Iran, in addition to ever increasing warmongering towards that country and China
-the escalation of the illegal colonial occupation of Afghanistan
-an illegal war of aggression against Libya, and a covert war of regime change against Syria
-the torture of Bradley Manning and many other people
-targeted assassination in which, for the first time in history, a president has claimed the right to kill anyone, including American citizens, without a trial


What do you think he'll do with this next term? He's already stated his top priority post-election is deeper cuts to public programs. What do you think is next on the chopping block?

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Theorist
#165 Old 7th Nov 2012 at 2:46 PM
Kiwi, it sounds like you pulled that list straight off of a biased right-wing website. Depending on political bias, one can easily paint Obama's achievements in either a positive or negative light.
Quote:
-Obama has overhauled the food safety system
-Advanced women's rights in the work place
-Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) in our military
-Stopped defending DOMA in court.
-Passed the Hate Crimes bill.
-Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court.
-Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can't afford it.
-Expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
-Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty [and rescissions] in health insurance.
-Invested in clean energy.
-Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more consumer-friendly.
-While Dodd-Frank bill was weak in many respects, it was still an extremely worthwhile start at re-regulating the financial sector.
-He created a Elizabeth Warren's dream agency: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
-He's done a lot for veterans
-He got help for people whose health was injured during the clean-up after the 9/11 attacks.
-He's killed Osama Bin Laden
-Eliminated several other Al-Qaeda leaders
-Ended the War in Iraq
-Begun the drawdown of forces from Afghanistan
-End-run Republican obstructionism by recess-appointing Richard Cordray to run the Consumer Financial Protection Board.

Some of the same things you've mentioned are described in more detail here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...ments035755.php
And they sound very positive.

Besides, if I were to choose to take a cynical right-wing view of Obama's achievements as your list sounds, I still would have voted for him as the alternative was far worse. Romney was proposing even deeper cuts to public programs than Obama. He was promising to cap spending at 20% of GDP and return non-security discretionary spending to below 2008 levels - which meant a 5% cut across the board. He pledged to reduce subsidies to The National Endowment for the Humanities, which provides grants for high-quality humanities projects to cultural institutions such as museums, archives, libraries, colleges, universities, public television, and radio stations. So if cuts to public programs is your concern, even if you choose to take a cynical view of things, 51% of American made absolutely the right choice voting for Obama.

That's not even taking into account issues that hit home, like how the candidates views differed on gender equality, gay rights, entitlements, taxation, and consumer protection. If you look at the big picture, it's clear 51% of America got it right.

Resident wet blanket.
Mad Poster
#166 Old 7th Nov 2012 at 5:46 PM
I'm not sure where you get that that's a right wing list - what on it is not true? A right wing list would be that 1) he's a Muslim and 2) he wasn't born in the US.
Just a few thoughts -
Invested in clean energy? He opened the Arctic Ocean for oil drilling.
Food safety? First of all, they want to allow poultry processors to inspect themselves.
Are the wars ending or are they just drone wars now? Drone attacks kill civilians too
For me, the election yesterday was one of the most depressing ever - which of these morally bankrupt men would you like to have as president?
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#167 Old 7th Nov 2012 at 6:05 PM
Quote:
A right wing list would be that 1) he's a Muslim and 2) he wasn't born in the US.
Not all right-wingers are that nuts.

The list was right-wing in that it focussed solely on Obama's failures and ignored his achievements. The responding list was left-wing in that it focussed on Obama's achievements and (mostly) ignored his failures. That is, if you want to interpret "right-wing" as anti-Obama and "left-wing" as pro-Obama. The most powerful arguments in politics are not those which are false, but those which are selectively true.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Theorist
#169 Old 7th Nov 2012 at 7:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by RoseCity
Just a few thoughts -
Invested in clean energy? He opened the Arctic Ocean for oil drilling.
Food safety? First of all, they want to allow poultry processors to inspect themselves.
Are the wars ending or are they just drone wars now? Drone attacks kill civilians too
For me, the election yesterday was one of the most depressing ever - which of these morally bankrupt men would you like to have as president?


So I gather from your complaints that you object to drilling in the ocean, you prefer more stringent food safety regulations, and you want the wars to end, including drone attacks? If that's true, to have voted for Romney would have been like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I would think even a cynic could see that it makes a lot more sense to vote for the lesser of two evils, though I personally think Obama is doing a great job with what he was given considering the amount of resistance in congress.

Resident wet blanket.
Mad Poster
#170 Old 7th Nov 2012 at 7:56 PM
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying - Barack Obama ok'd exploratory drilling in the Arctic Ocean, but don't vote for Romney because he'd okay exploratory drilling in the Arctic Ocean? The Obama administration is fighting a drone war now, but don't vote for Romney because he'd fight a drone war?
Also a person from the DNC said it didn't matter who I vote for because I live in Connecticut. But there's nothing cynical about that - they were just telling the truth.
But what's the point of even discussing on here.
And all the maladies of the world burst forth from Pandora's cooch
#171 Old 7th Nov 2012 at 8:28 PM
Quote: Originally posted by RoseCity
For me, the election yesterday was one of the most depressing ever - which of these morally bankrupt men would you like to have as president?
Funny, for me, the election was a step in the right direction, as far as equal rights goes. Regardless of how you feel about Obama's economic and and foreign policies, the alternative would have meant women's reproductive and financial rights would have been severely hampered, minorities would have been left out in the cold, and members of the GLBT community would most likely have serious obstacles to basic equal rights. Those groups still have a long way to go, of course, but it has been quite clear for awhile now that the current GOP has no interest in you unless you fall into their narrow minded view of society. Even when members of those demographics purport to be republican, the GOP merely uses them for propaganda. They love to point to them to say how inclusive they really are, but systematically ignore basic human rights.

The republican party is increasingly out of touch with the younger generations coming of voting age. Both campaigns ran on social issues, and it is clear where the country is heading, by the results of both the popular and electorate vote.
Theorist
#172 Old 7th Nov 2012 at 8:41 PM
Quote: Originally posted by RoseCity
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying - Barack Obama ok'd exploratory drilling in the Arctic Ocean, but don't vote for Romney because he'd okay exploratory drilling in the Arctic Ocean? The Obama administration is fighting a drone war now, but don't vote for Romney because he'd fight a drone war?
Also a person from the DNC said it didn't matter who I vote for because I live in Connecticut. But there's nothing cynical about that - they were just telling the truth.
But what's the point of even discussing on here.


What I'm saying is that Obama may have ok'd drilling in the Chukchi Sea of the Arctic Ocean (a rather marginal part of the Arctic Ocean), but Romney would have ok'd drilling on many federally protected lands such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (which Obama refuses to do) or the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Virginia and the Carolinas. Romney also said his plan would result in 2 million additional barrels per day in offshore drilling. So if you disagree with drilling in the Arctic at all, what makes more sense, to vote for the candidate who allows only a little off-shore drilling or one who thinks we need MORE off-shore drilling?

Obama administration may be fighting a drone war now, but Romney fully endorsed Obama's use of drones, and stressed that drones alone are not good enough. He criticized that Obama's foreign policy isn't aggressive enough. So if you think the Obama administration was too aggressive on this war, does it make sense to back a candidate that thinks he isn't aggressive enough? Wants MORE than drones?

These were the two guys we had to choose from. Considering your complaints, I think your dismay is misplaced. Obama isn't perfect, but he is a hell of a lot better than what we could have gotten!

Resident wet blanket.
Retired
retired moderator
#173 Old 8th Nov 2012 at 9:59 AM Last edited by kiwi_tea : 8th Nov 2012 at 1:24 PM.
Apparently there is no such thing as criticising Obama from the left, now.

I find it difficult to accept that a Romney presidency would be, all in all, worse than an Obama one. After all, Obama's first term has made it look like Bush was pulling his punches throughout his entire presidency, and Obama reversed none of Bush's substantive policies at all, he expanded them further to the right than ever. I would expect Romney's presidency to be as bad.

Really, people need to start fighting this political decay, fighting for alternatives to the hard right-wing policies of the Democrats and Republicans. They are not sustainable. The growth of income-inequality - the resultant social crisis - will lead to riots and violence eventually, and to brutal state suppression. Obama has achieved one or two good things - his support for gay marriage is great, but what use is gay marriage if under Obama's policies most gay couples find themselves barely making enough money to survive?

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Mad Poster
#174 Old 8th Nov 2012 at 1:28 PM
His message in the 2008 campaign was 'change' - that the country had been going in a bad direction. I could understand if, after being elected, he found it more difficult that he imagined to reverse direction. And people warned even back then that he had the same corporate masters to serve as every other politician, but I thought that somehow it would be different. I never thought then that not only would he continue down the same road, he'd step on the gas.
I agree - if there are two candidates and one serves you half a shit sandwich and the other one serves you a whole, you should choose the half sandwich. What I don't understand is this whole thing - yay Obama won! - that you have to eat the half sandwich and also say how great it tastes, so much better than the whole one. And I have no way to know now if Romney would even have been worse.
On the subject of same sex marriage and LGBT rights - that battle is mostly being fought on the state level in the US and is moving forward (or not) apart from what's going on in Washington and Obama and Romney.
Quote: Originally posted by kiwi_tea
What do you think he'll do with this next term? He's already stated his top priority post-election is deeper cuts to public programs. What do you think is next on the chopping block?

I think he's going to close Guantanamo and release the prisoners that have been cleared. /joke
I think Social Security might be next - raising the age requirements or something.
I'm very curious to see what's going to happen with the Colorado, Oregon and Washington legalization of recreational marijuana use. Considering how the Obama administration has cracked down on medical marijuana. You'd never know Barry used to fire one up, back in the day.
Retired
retired moderator
#175 Old 8th Nov 2012 at 1:39 PM
What worries me is what happens if we all sit around not building a genuinely left alternative to the ruling parties. Because as the horrors of austerity have hit home in Europe people have run to small, alternative parties - but if you look at Greece they've run into the arms of lunatic pseudo-left groups like Syriza who offer no solutions and, even worse, into the arms of openly fascist groups like Golden Dawn. Everyone really needs to get over the idea that the big two parties are the only options, as much as they've set up a system that makes it seem superficially like that's the case. When the shit hits the fan - and that's inevitable given the road global politics is taking - if there are not existing, viable alternatives to the right-wing Democrats, Republicans, and Greens, then it will be a very dangerous time.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
 
Page 7 of 9
Back to top