Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

Edward64 05-04-2011 06:54 AM

Two misc thoughts.

Although I do believe we got UBL, is it beyond belief that we captured him and brought him back to alive and are interrogating him now? Obviously an explosive power keg if ever made public but worth the risk?

Some news pundits (e.g. Fox) stressing that the harse interrogation tactics helped find UBL. Although I do not believe there is a necessarily a direct relationship (and knowing I would spill the beans under torture), isn't there some semblance of truth to ends justifies the means in extreme cases?

JPhillips 05-04-2011 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2465291)
Two misc thoughts.

Although I do believe we got UBL, is it beyond belief that we captured him and brought him back to alive and are interrogating him now? Obviously an explosive power keg if ever made public but worth the risk?

Some news pundits (e.g. Fox) stressing that the harse interrogation tactics helped find UBL. Although I do not believe there is a necessarily a direct relationship (and knowing I would spill the beans under torture), isn't there some semblance of truth to ends justifies the means in extreme cases?


A host of folks on both sides of the aisle, including Rumsfeld, are saying torture did not lead to any of the intel in this case.

Mustang 05-04-2011 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2465300)
A host of folks on both sides of the aisle, including Rumsfeld, are saying torture did not lead to any of the intel in this case.


You expect them to say otherwise?

JPhillips 05-04-2011 09:09 AM

Why would Rummy, Graham, unnamed military and CIA sources, etc. lie?

Edward64 05-04-2011 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2465300)
A host of folks on both sides of the aisle, including Rumsfeld, are saying torture did not lead to any of the intel in this case.


Actually, Rumsfeld was on Hannity last night and I thought I heard otherwise. The word torture did not come up but the other set of euphemisms.

I'll try dig it up later.

stevew 05-04-2011 09:42 AM

I actually hope that the courier tracing was an elaborate front story they are putting out there. Seems that even though they got the big fish with it, it would be a very valuable way to get some other players. In reality, we have too many Americans who have this entitlement idea that they should be able to see evidence that really doesn't need to get released. I think the Bin Laden photos don't need to come out because they will likely do more harm than good. The crazy amount of conspiracy these days is sickening. Perhaps we do not have the most trustworthy government, however an alarming amount of the population is so blinded by conspiracy that they would argue that the sky isn't blue.

Edward64 05-04-2011 09:44 AM

Sounds like a man wanting to say yes but knows its not prudent to do so.

Rumsfeld uncertain whether Bush policies helped find bin Laden - TheHill.com
Quote:

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday that he can’t conclude harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding helped find Osama bin Laden.

“I have no idea, you’d have to ask the experts,” Rumsfeld told The Hill when asked whether interrogation policies implemented by former President George W. Bush were instrumental to locating bin Laden.

fantom1979 05-04-2011 10:15 AM

I really don't care if UBL is dead or alive, or if he died 10 years ago (as I have heard some conspiracy theorists spew out). As long as he is in our custody or in one of our coffins, I am satisfied.

If he is secretly alive and in custody, I hope I never find out about it. Its one of those things I just don't need to know.

Rizon 05-04-2011 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2465368)
an alarming amount of the population is so blinded by conspiracy that they would argue that the sky isn't blue.


It's not ... the government uses planes to paint the sky blue so it positively affects our psychology and we turn into better consumers.

JediKooter 05-04-2011 10:38 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rizon (Post 2465385)
It's not ... the government uses planes to paint the sky blue so it positively affects our psychology and we turn into better consumers.


Attachment 2891

molson 05-04-2011 10:38 AM

I sure hope no terrorists suffered any temporary physical discomfort so that we could shoot Osama in the head.

fantom1979 05-04-2011 10:44 AM

I heard some stuff yesterday about whether or not Osama was holding a weapon at the time that we shot him. Does it really matter? The guy is the #1 target in a building with numerous guards. I believe the phrase "shoot first, ask questions later" has never had a better use.

Passacaglia 05-04-2011 10:52 AM

Probably not, it just sounds like it was incorrectly reported at first, and the White House is setting the record straight.

JonInMiddleGA 05-04-2011 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia (Post 2465417)
Probably not, it just sounds like it was incorrectly reported at first, and the White House is setting the record straight.


Even if some of that initially incorrect information came from sources at/very near the White House (which I believe to be the case, based on summaries of the discrepancies I read last night) I'm inclined to consider them as largely excusable for both the sources and the reporters.

Just as no plan survives contact with the enemy completely intact, infrequently do initial incomplete accounts of incidents completely match the version complied upon more thorough review. Heat of the moment & all that.

A couple of things do bother me a little bit though, I'll throw them in here.

1) Why admit that he was unarmed? Makes me concerned that we may not have been the only ones filming the climatic moments. Did we miss a security tape somewhere, or at least are worried that we may have missed one? I'm not entirely comfortable with that revelation being made solely in the interest of accuracy, simply put, most people don't have need to know about that.

2) Along those same lines, a little tighter grasp on what should/shouldn't be released would have been nice. Lord knows, I'm not into making life easier for Obama, but was it really necessary to mention the code name used to identify OBL? And to give someone something to bitch about in the process?
C'mon people, think a little bit before opening your yap. Beyond a few publicity seekers, no one gained anything from mentioning "Geronimo", so why even go there. That kind of lack of foresight is mostly harmless this time, but I'd prefer that people "in the know" not develop a habit of giving away things they shouldn't, could be a problem in a different situation if you used the same shitty judgment.

larrymcg421 05-04-2011 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2465401)
I sure hope no terrorists suffered any temporary physical discomfort so that we could shoot Osama in the head.


I hope that we didn't lower ourselves to the standards of our enemies in an attempt to defeat our enemies. It sounds like we didn't, and for that I am glad.

molson 05-04-2011 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2465432)
I hope that we didn't lower ourselves to the standards of our enemies in an attempt to defeat our enemies. It sounds like we didn't, and for that I am glad.


One could say we "lowered" ourselves by assassinating an unarmed man without trial (and invaded a sovereign country to do it.) I just think the dichotomy is amusing. Obviously violence against terrorists is accepted by almost everyone, and yet sleep deprivation techniques against terrorists are considered abhorrent. (There's obviously a completely seperate, and real concern about the actual effectiveness of "enhanced interrogation") Torture's bad (especially if there's no interrogation aim to it), but a lot of the interrogation techniques I've read about don't really seem all that significant compared to say - locking someone up forever. We just have a special enhanced sensivity to physical discomfort - somehow life in prison is considered more humane than 10 lashes with a singapore cane or something. In this country, we can lock someone up forever for dealing drugs, but if the prison guard shoves him to the ground - the latter is a gross abuse of authority, the latter is the thing that offends our souls.

stevew 05-04-2011 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2465431)
Even if some of that initially incorrect information came from sources at/very near the White House (which I believe to be the case, based on summaries of the discrepancies I read last night) I'm inclined to consider them as largely excusable for both the sources and the reporters.

Just as no plan survives contact with the enemy completely intact, infrequently do initial incomplete accounts of incidents completely match the version complied upon more thorough review. Heat of the moment & all that.

A couple of things do bother me a little bit though, I'll throw them in here.

1) Why admit that he was unarmed? Makes me concerned that we may not have been the only ones filming the climatic moments. Did we miss a security tape somewhere, or at least are worried that we may have missed one? I'm not entirely comfortable with that revelation being made solely in the interest of accuracy, simply put, most people don't have need to know about that.

2) Along those same lines, a little tighter grasp on what should/shouldn't be released would have been nice. Lord knows, I'm not into making life easier for Obama, but was it really necessary to mention the code name used to identify OBL? And to give someone something to bitch about in the process?
C'mon people, think a little bit before opening your yap. Beyond a few publicity seekers, no one gained anything from mentioning "Geronimo", so why even go there. That kind of lack of foresight is mostly harmless this time, but I'd prefer that people "in the know" not develop a habit of giving away things they shouldn't, could be a problem in a different situation if you used the same shitty judgment.


I agree with your points here. It's like these schmucks all have diarrhea of the mouth. At least they aren't going to release the photos.

GrantDawg 05-04-2011 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2465431)
Even if some of that initially incorrect information came from sources at/very near the White House (which I believe to be the case, based on summaries of the discrepancies I read last night) I'm inclined to consider them as largely excusable for both the sources and the reporters.

Just as no plan survives contact with the enemy completely intact, infrequently do initial incomplete accounts of incidents completely match the version complied upon more thorough review. Heat of the moment & all that.

A couple of things do bother me a little bit though, I'll throw them in here.

1) Why admit that he was unarmed? Makes me concerned that we may not have been the only ones filming the climatic moments. Did we miss a security tape somewhere, or at least are worried that we may have missed one? I'm not entirely comfortable with that revelation being made solely in the interest of accuracy, simply put, most people don't have need to know about that.

2) Along those same lines, a little tighter grasp on what should/shouldn't be released would have been nice. Lord knows, I'm not into making life easier for Obama, but was it really necessary to mention the code name used to identify OBL? And to give someone something to bitch about in the process?
C'mon people, think a little bit before opening your yap. Beyond a few publicity seekers, no one gained anything from mentioning "Geronimo", so why even go there. That kind of lack of foresight is mostly harmless this time, but I'd prefer that people "in the know" not develop a habit of giving away things they shouldn't, could be a problem in a different situation if you used the same shitty judgment.



They probably should have just stuck by the intial reports, but they might be trying to correct the earlier statements because of not just the possibility of "other footage" (they were only there 40 minutes, and a little busy to boot. No telling what might be in Pakistan's hands right now that was missed), but they deffinitely left behind eye witnesses from the compound. You already have a daughter that was there claiming he was captured, then shot (not very credible considering the wounds. It would have been two in the back of the head in that case), but the others might have seen more and be a more credible witness.

GrantDawg 05-04-2011 04:05 PM

Reuters has pics released from a Pakistani official of three dead men killed in the assault.

Dutch 05-04-2011 04:37 PM

Didn't the CIA director already explain that the intent of the mission was to kill Bin Laden? In that case, it really didn't matter whether he had a gun or not. That should really be the end of that concern.

I don't really mind the WH coming being somewhat chaotic about what info they were putting out...and then correcting it. It doesn't all sound pre-scripted and in my eyes, makes it more honest/believable.

JPhillips 05-04-2011 04:55 PM

After the Tillman and Lynch fables I think DoD and the White House are pretty sensitive to getting correct info out. The truth eventually comes out and it looks better if it appears there is nothing to hide.

Dutch 05-04-2011 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2465574)
After the Tillman and Lynch fables I think DoD and the White House are pretty sensitive to getting correct info out. The truth eventually comes out and it looks better if it appears there is nothing to hide.


Yes, they are learning how to behave in a 24/7 video camera, facebook world. You simply can't bullshit as much as you used to. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there is plenty of bullshit flying around, we are just getting better at it.

stevew 05-05-2011 10:01 PM

So how bout those republican challengers. Santorum? They still make that shit?

fantom1979 05-06-2011 12:14 AM

Isn't Santorum too busy trying to kill the National Weather Service to run for president?

RainMaker 05-06-2011 05:32 AM

I think one of the problems is that all these reports seem to mix what's coming out of Washington with "anonymouse sources inside whatever agency". So people read this, assume the whole thing is the truth, when in fact the "source" could be full of shit.

Ronnie Dobbs2 05-06-2011 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2466342)
So how bout those republican challengers. Santorum? They still make that shit?


Pawlenty looks good.


JediKooter 05-06-2011 10:37 AM

He's gay.

molson 05-06-2011 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2466342)
So how bout those republican challengers. Santorum? They still make that shit?


If I get a Palin v. Trump televised debate I'll be happy.

Edward64 05-06-2011 05:54 PM

Too bad we missed. It would have been one hell of a week.

U.S. Drone Strike in Yemen Reportedly Was Aimed at Radical Cleric Seen as Post-Bin Laden Threat - FoxNews.com
Quote:

A U.S. drone strike in Yemen on Thursday was aimed at killing Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical cleric who is suspected of orchestrating terrorist attacks on the U.S, but the missile missed its target, Yemeni and U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal.

The drone strike comes less than a week after U.S. Navy SEALs killed Usama bin Laden at a compound in Pakistan. Had the drone strike in Yemen been successful, the U.S. would have killed two of the top three most-wanted terrorists in a single week.

Galaxy 05-06-2011 09:05 PM

Lot of leaked information on all the details of the whole situation that has been let out. A little weird to me.

RainMaker 05-06-2011 09:32 PM

Looks like we have them on their heals. Hopefully the information they got is coming in handy.

Edward64 05-07-2011 11:27 PM

I don't get why he made home videos, hope this takes him down a peg.

NYT: Bin Laden’s secret life in diminished world - World news - The New York Times - msnbc.com
Quote:

Videos seized from Bin Laden’s compound and released by the Obama administration on Saturday show him wrapped in an old blanket watching himself on TV, like an aging actor imagining a comeback. A senior intelligence official said other videos show him practicing and flubbing his lines in front of a camera. He was interested enough in his image, the official said, to dye his white beard black for the recordings.

Another article with more description and links to videos.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ack-Obama.html

Mac Howard 05-08-2011 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2466540)
If I get a Palin v. Trump televised debate I'll be happy.


LOL!!!

JPhillips 05-10-2011 08:24 PM

More libertarian minded tea partiers.

Quote:

For others, a total spending freeze and a small, short-term limit increase was acceptable, provided it came with guarantees of deep spending cuts. For Tea Party Founding Fathers chairman William Temple, a reinstatement of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and keeping women out of combat roles would also be acceptable.

Temple, who addressed the audience in his trademark colonial garb, is organzing the Tea Party Freedom Jamboree this fall in Kansas City. He railed against Boehner and the GOP leadership in his speech, calling them “wimpy RINOs” and even attacked Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) Medicare-destroying plan passed by the House last month as a “so-called ‘courageous’ budget”

Temple is 100% opposed to raising the debt ceiling, and said that how members vote on the issue will be the sole item on the tea party scorecard when it comes to rating candidates in 2012. Vote for the increase, you get a zero. Vote against it, you get a 100. Apparently it’s that simple.

But even Temple said he understood a compromise might be coming. So he offered a long list of things the Republicans could do that would lead the “tea party movement as a whole” to “possibly forgive Boehner and the House Republicans a small bump in the debt limit.”

On the list was keeping the front lines of America’s wars as free of openly gay people and women of any sexual leaning as possible.

Temple said that “if the House Armed Services Committee and the Pentagon slow down on injecting open homosexuality and females into forward combat roles,” tea partiers might be able to put up with their new Republican House voting to ensure American government services are paid for with more borrowed cash.

panerd 05-10-2011 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2468236)
More libertarian minded tea partiers.


How disingenuous of you to post “Libertarian” before that article. You are well aware that the religious nuts that dominate a wing of the Republican Party have nothing to do with the Libertarians. And while many of their views may seem extreme to some they are definitely completely behind gay rights. You know you aren't that naive .

JPhillips 05-10-2011 08:44 PM

So can we finally agree that a big portion of the tea party are nothing more than the far right of the GOP?

panerd 05-10-2011 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2468248)
So can we finally agree that a big portion of the tea party are nothing more than the far right of the GOP?


I don't think many people ever argued with you did they? Rand Paul seems to be about the only libertarian voice that emerged from that "revolution". Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin are typical social conservatives speaking the new "buzzwords". Don't ever recall disagreeing with you on this topic but I am glad you somehow think that is what makes someone libertarian.

Dutch 05-10-2011 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2468248)
So can we finally agree that a big portion of the tea party are nothing more than the far right of the GOP?


Maybe, let's also agree on what the far left is. Then we'll be getting somewhere. :)

JonInMiddleGA 05-10-2011 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2468248)
So can we finally agree that a big portion of the tea party are nothing more than the far right of the GOP?


Oversimplification IMO.

There's a chunk that seems to be a different strain of what you're referring to, one that looks at both social and economic issues & considers them in tandem

At the risk of handing out a comparison that someone might enjoy just a little too much, trying to pin much of anything on "The Tea Party" is like labeling 100s of different strains as "The Flu".

JPhillips 05-10-2011 09:00 PM

Who said this?

Quote:

Yes I am telling you it started before Obama actually. It started after GW Bush and the first bailout. It was a key part of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign and the Campaign for Liberty. "T.E.A." = "Taxed Enough Already" Of course the mass media (both left and right) are more than happy to say it is a creation of Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. Believe what you want but this is a force that doesn't like either Republicans or Democrats. The Democrats have at least acknowledged the Tea Party (they mock but that is the next step in acknowledgement). The Republicans sit and smile and think they are all under one tent. Wait until the elections in the fall and they will realize these guys don't like them either.

or this?

Quote:

Yes. The Ron Paul tea party movement is what I am talking about. Just like liberals probably don't like to acknowledge the Democratic party is pro-war and pro corporations I don't like to acknowledge Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh as fighters for liberty. I know a lot of people who don't like big government, and of course don't like Obama, who want nothing to do with Republicans either. That is who I think will be voting in the fall. Of course CNN and Fox news will try to spin it differently. Believe whomever you want.

or this?

Quote:

I remember it happening in real time and don't need the Palm Beach post telling me that Ron Paul's followers didn't create the Tea Party. I don't care what the mass media has decided to label as the Tea Party or who they claim the Tea Party endorses.

panerd 05-10-2011 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2468262)
Who said this?



or this?



or this?


And the true libertarian camp from Ron Paul's 2008 presidential run (that referred to themselves as the TEA party) are far different than the group that claims to be the tea party now. I don't contradict that one bit in any of the quotes you dug up.

JPhillips 05-10-2011 09:16 PM

There was a time around here when any saying the tea party was mostly just a rebranding of the far right would lead to instant replies that saying so was slanderous to independents that were mostly concerned with fiscal discipline.

panerd 05-10-2011 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2468274)
There was a time around here when any saying the tea party was mostly just a rebranding of the far right would lead to instant replies that saying so was slanderous to independents that were mostly concerned with fiscal discipline.


I am glad you think there is something more important than fiscal discipline. Try applying that principle to your personal life. Oh it doesn't ever work does it? Sadly there is still a large number of people who are starting to understand the economic problems of this country but don't also understand you can't control how others live, nor should you.

JPhillips 05-10-2011 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2468283)
I am glad you think there is something more important than fiscal discipline.


? Where did I say anything like that?

molson 05-10-2011 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2468274)
There was a time around here when any saying the tea party was mostly just a rebranding of the far right would lead to instant replies that saying so was slanderous to independents that were mostly concerned with fiscal discipline.


I think it was the other way around (or at least it was also the other way around), there was a time around here where expressing concern about government debt and government corruption would lead to one being labeled as a tea partier (funny hat wearing version). It's promising though that the fiscal solvency of our nation is no longer a fringe concern.

molson 05-10-2011 09:54 PM

But isn't it a reasonable theory that all of that non-partisan, independent Ron Paul love early in the 2008 presidential campaign sparked the "tea party" movement, but then right wing republicans took that moniker and ran with it during an election season?

I mean, there was clearly some Ron Paul momentum, and there was clearly republicans wearing funny hats at tea party rallys - those weren't the same thing - either it was something separate, or it was an evolution/takeover.

JonInMiddleGA 05-11-2011 12:45 AM

Here's a little something that ties into the whole GOP vs TP and how they (may) fit together thing somewhere.

The linkage is from the Athens daily but the column is actual a pick up from the LA Times. It's an op-ed about various findings in a recent Pew study but there's a reference in there that connects to something I said just up the thread a few posts (needless to say, I was a little surprised to see something backing up my assertion so quickly)

{snip}
Quote:

The Republicans, according to Pew's findings, are overwhelmingly white (about 9 out of 10), devoutly and decisively Protestant (roughly 7 out of 10) and financially well off (7 of 10). The old divide between the GOP's social and economic conservatives, Pew found, has been erased. These days, to be Republican is to be equally conservative in both areas. This national realignment, the Pew analysts argue, is the most significant change in the six years since their last such survey.

Also of interest (and related to harder line TP'ers stances)
Quote:

...Pew found that a majority of registered voters - and a stunning 79 percent of "staunch conservatives" - say they "prefer elected officials who stick to their positions over those who make compromises with people they disagree with."

SirFozzie 05-11-2011 01:07 AM

In other words, people who'd "destroy the village to save it".

RainMaker 05-11-2011 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2468344)
But isn't it a reasonable theory that all of that non-partisan, independent Ron Paul love early in the 2008 presidential campaign sparked the "tea party" movement, but then right wing republicans took that moniker and ran with it during an election season?

I mean, there was clearly some Ron Paul momentum, and there was clearly republicans wearing funny hats at tea party rallys - those weren't the same thing - either it was something separate, or it was an evolution/takeover.

I think it started with Paul but really has nothing to do with him anymore. Some of it started with that Rick Santelli rant on CNBC about bailouts for mortgage owners (when his paycheck was coming compliments of a bailout). The rest seemed to come from people upset about losing the elections and needing something to latch on to. The Republican Party has tried to butt into it and some others who have financial motives have gotten their hands on it.

It's such a mess now that I think it's silly to even be calling it by its name. There really is no definition, no organization, and no universal beliefs. It ranges from people who are genuinely upset about government to those just upset a black man is President.

RainMaker 05-11-2011 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2468492)
In other words, people who'd "destroy the village to save it".

That's most partisians though. The farthest of the far right and far left don't like compromise. It's a sport to many of them and that's seen as losing. The issues and the country don't matter to them, just winning.

SirFozzie 05-11-2011 01:13 AM

I agree to a point, RM, but at least to me, there seems to be a hell of a lot more far right screamers then there are far left..

JPhillips 05-11-2011 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2468494)
That's most partisians though. The farthest of the far right and far left don't like compromise. It's a sport to many of them and that's seen as losing. The issues and the country don't matter to them, just winning.


That's true to an extent, but far more on the right don't want compromise. From another Pew Poll:

62/33 of the GOP favored stick to position over compromise

39/54 of Dems felt the same way

It's numbers like those that really make me worry about any debt limit compromise.

gstelmack 05-11-2011 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2468495)
I agree to a point, RM, but at least to me, there seems to be a hell of a lot more far right screamers then there are far left..


I think that's because it's easier for a far right screamer to make the news to show how insane they are, while the left does a much better job of covering up their nutjobs. Or rather, the left is much better at PR than the right.

Let's not forget that both sides have extremists willing to kill to get their point across, for example. The far right has abortion doctor killers and McVeigh, the far left has the nutjobs burning down resorts out west.

JonInMiddleGA 05-11-2011 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2468492)
In other words, people who'd "destroy the village to save it".


{shrug} Call it what you like but often the product of some compromises isn't worth saving.

JonInMiddleGA 05-11-2011 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2468494)
That's most partisians though. The farthest of the far right and far left don't like compromise.


So either "the majority of registered voters" are now far left/right or the word "far" really no longer applies. I mean, if you're over half the pie then it's kind of hard to be simply the edge. (I know there's a mixed metaphor in there somewhere but hopefully you get what I mean).

The same article also notes that even the supposed middle is increasingly ideological.

Quote:

Perhaps the most striking of Pew's findings is the realization that independent voters remain free of party but not of ideology, ranging from libertarians (now 10 percent of registered voters) to a group that, the poll says, takes "conservative positions on questions about racial policy and the social safety net" but is "very liberal on social issues." ... "What we see is a much bigger and increasingly diverse middle," Pew's Andrew Kohut told the Washington Post this week. "What's striking about it is that they're not so moderate. People in the middle have some strong, well-defined ideological points of view."

DaddyTorgo 05-11-2011 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2468481)
Here's a little something that ties into the whole GOP vs TP and how they (may) fit together thing somewhere.

The linkage is from the Athens daily but the column is actual a pick up from the LA Times. It's an op-ed about various findings in a recent Pew study but there's a reference in there that connects to something I said just up the thread a few posts (needless to say, I was a little surprised to see something backing up my assertion so quickly)

{snip}


Also of interest (and related to harder line TP'ers stances)


Which just speaks to the GOP's dwindling base now and in the future as caucasians continue to decline as a % of the overall population...

JonInMiddleGA 05-11-2011 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2468583)
Which just speaks to the GOP's dwindling base now and in the future as caucasians continue to decline as a % of the overall population...


What, you mean that we can't have conservatives of other colors? Shit, somebody better call Herman.

lungs 05-13-2011 11:23 AM

WI Senator Herb Kohl to retire

That's opens up a tough one for the Dems, especially if somebody like Paul Ryan runs. I wonder if Russ Feingold tries to get back to the Senate as I don't know of any other Dems that stand out as possibilities and if somebody like Paul Ryan runs it stands a good chance of turning Republican anyway.

JPhillips 05-13-2011 12:17 PM

2012 is going to be brutal for Dems in the Senate. There were a number of seats won in 2006 that they'll struggle to hold and retirements just make things that much tougher. Even if Obama wins coattails generally aren't as long for an incumbent.

Edward64 05-13-2011 12:31 PM

Looks as if Obama is going to increase the US porn export business in Pakistan.

Osama bin Laden: Porn Found in bin Laden Hideout: US Officials - CNBC
Quote:

A stash of pornography was found in the hideout of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. commandos who killed him, current and former U.S. officials said on Friday.

The pornography recovered in bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Galaxy 05-13-2011 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2469809)
Looks as if Obama is going to increase the US porn export business in Pakistan.

Osama bin Laden: Porn Found in bin Laden Hideout: US Officials - CNBC


I'm sure an intense investigation into the porn will be conducted.

RainMaker 05-13-2011 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2468563)
That's true to an extent, but far more on the right don't want compromise. From another Pew Poll:

62/33 of the GOP favored stick to position over compromise

39/54 of Dems felt the same way

It's numbers like those that really make me worry about any debt limit compromise.

That's still a small percent. The Pew poll showed 25% viewed themselves as "mostly Republican". I dont' know if that counts as being a Republican, but if it does, then 62% of that is only 15%. And 39% of the 40% who call themselves Democrat is right at 15% as well.

That's 30% of the voting base that is strong in their beliefs, still a minority although a little bigger than I thought it would be. That 30% is also the loudest of all.

JPhillips 05-16-2011 10:36 AM

We hit the debt limit today. We've got @11 weeks before the GOP throws the country into default.

Madness.

DaddyTorgo 05-16-2011 12:19 PM

Oh yeah - I meant to make a "Happy Debt Limit Armageddeon" post this morning.

Whoops.

sabotai 05-16-2011 01:46 PM

So you're saying now would be good time to start looking for a job in Europe or East Asia?

JPhillips 05-16-2011 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai (Post 2470742)
So you're saying now would be good time to start looking for a job in Europe or East Asia?


Europe isn't good unless they can straighten out the PIG.

East Asia won't do well if the USA allows itself to crash.

sabotai 05-16-2011 02:45 PM

What about Brazil? How's Brazil looking?

JediKooter 05-16-2011 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai (Post 2470787)
What about Brazil? How's Brazil looking?


Not sure about Brazil the county, but, Brazilian women...looking good.

stevew 05-16-2011 03:15 PM

I'm brushing off my spanish* knowledge so I can move to Brazil once we default.


*dumb american joke.

sabotai 05-16-2011 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2470801)
Not sure about Brazil the county, but, Brazilian women...looking good.


I did pick Brazil for a specific reason. :D (Although Argentina is a more than viable alternative)

JediKooter 05-16-2011 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai (Post 2470807)
I did pick Brazil for a specific reason. :D (Although Argentina is a more than viable alternative)


I commend you on your choice/s. :)

There's just something about that continents women...

albionmoonlight 05-16-2011 04:00 PM

I get that President Obama's M.O. is to let the legislators do their thing before he steps in.

But I really would not mind if he got in front of this debt ceiling thing and started explaining the reality of it to the public.

RainMaker 05-16-2011 05:31 PM

Not sure what thread is best for this but I found the shit Beck was spewing about Meghan McCain to be rather pathetic. Grown men acting like that. How much can one person hate women?

Buccaneer 05-16-2011 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2470608)
We hit the debt limit today. We've got @11 weeks before the GOP throws the country into default.

Madness.


Some say it's madness to have gotten to this point, as well as madness to continue the insanity.

JPhillips 05-16-2011 06:15 PM

I'd agree with that, but forcing the government into default isn't the way to deal with the problem. If you don't believe me maybe you'll believe Reagan.

Quote:

The full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of default by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar.

panerd 05-16-2011 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2470838)
I get that President Obama's M.O. is to let the legislators do their thing before he steps in.

But I really would not mind if he got in front of this debt ceiling thing and started explaining the reality of it to the public.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Paul (Post 2470917)
"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

.

panerd 05-16-2011 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2470892)
Not sure what thread is best for this but I found the shit Beck was spewing about Meghan McCain to be rather pathetic. Grown men acting like that. How much can one person hate women?


Ratings. All about ratings. We both agree it is sad but he gets both supporters and haters watching his every move. This happens all the time with local sports radio.

miked 05-16-2011 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2470906)
Some say it's madness to have gotten to this point, as well as madness to continue the insanity.


I believe in the last 60 years, the debt limit has been raised about 80+ times (or something I heard). In fact, these idiots in the (R) caucus had no problem raising it, what 7 times during W's tenure? Suddenly, it's too much to handle.

I agree it sucks to raise the debt limit, but nothing anyone is putting out there actually addresses these issues. So we're going to screw the people because these idiots can't think past their re-election.

Buccaneer 05-16-2011 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2470912)
I'd agree with that, but forcing the government into default isn't the way to deal with the problem. If you don't believe me maybe you'll believe Reagan.


Doing nothing or the status quo isn't the way to deal with the problem either. Something different has to be done.

ps. I didn't believe much in Reagan then or now. Nice try though.

Buccaneer 05-16-2011 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2470921)
I believe in the last 60 years, the debt limit has been raised about 80+ times (or something I heard). In fact, these idiots in the (R) caucus had no problem raising it, what 7 times during W's tenure? Suddenly, it's too much to handle.

I agree it sucks to raise the debt limit, but nothing anyone is putting out there actually addresses these issues. So we're going to screw the people because these idiots can't think past their re-election.


I would submit that the head idiot that can't think past his re-election is Obama.

rowech 05-16-2011 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2470921)
I believe in the last 60 years, the debt limit has been raised about 80+ times (or something I heard). In fact, these idiots in the (R) caucus had no problem raising it, what 7 times during W's tenure? Suddenly, it's too much to handle.

I agree it sucks to raise the debt limit, but nothing anyone is putting out there actually addresses these issues. So we're going to screw the people because these idiots can't think past their re-election.


And the tea party posterboy Reagan raised it more than any president in history.

panerd 05-16-2011 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2470921)
I believe in the last 60 years, the debt limit has been raised about 80+ times (or something I heard). In fact, these idiots in the (R) caucus had no problem raising it, what 7 times during W's tenure? Suddenly, it's too much to handle.

I agree it sucks to raise the debt limit, but nothing anyone is putting out there actually addresses these issues. So we're going to screw the people because these idiots can't think past their re-election.


I agree with everything you said except for your conclusion. You had me for a while until you brought it back to the D vs R baseball game.

molson 05-16-2011 06:31 PM

Can't we just apply for a shitload more discover cards or something? Maybe try to get a couple in the dog's name? That should keep us afloat for another few months.

JPhillips 05-16-2011 06:39 PM

The GOP line would be more believable if those in the House didn't vote for a budget that would require the debt limit to be raised for the next decade.

molson 05-16-2011 06:57 PM

It's hard to know when to really take a stand. Sure, not raising the debt limit would cause huge problems. But doing so would once again just push the consequences off. And hey, I'm all about pushing consequences off, I do it in my personal life all the time. But someday, somehow, in some way - isn't this a problem we need to address? If we absolutely insist on refusing to do anything if it causes any pain at all, and instead are content to just wait until the negative effects come in a way we absolutely can't control, push off, or mitigate - that's going to suck a lot worse.

This problem isn't going to just go away. Maybe the effort is misguided but at least there's some heavy artillery now trying to force someone's hand. The Dems could do the same kind of thing in trying to force tax increases I suppose. But if they consider these kind of tactics abhorrent, then what exactly is their strategy to get things in control? Keep talking about it a lot? Keep posting charts on message boards to show how evil everyone else is?

RainMaker 05-16-2011 06:57 PM

Buccaneer, I don't think you understand what happens if we don't raise the debt ceiling.

JPhillips 05-16-2011 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2470933)
It's hard to know when to really take a stand. Sure, not raising the debt limit would cause huge problems. But doing so would once again just push the consequences off. And hey, I'm all about pushing consequences off, I do it in my personal life all the time. But someday, somehow, in some way - isn't this a problem we need to address? If we absolutely insist on refusing to do anything if it causes any pain at all, and instead are content to just wait until the negative effects come in a way we absolutely can't control, push off, or mitigate - that's going to suck a lot worse.

This problem isn't going to just go away. Maybe the effort is misguided but at least there's some heavy artillery now trying to force someone's hand. The Dems could do the same kind of thing in trying to force tax increases I suppose. But if they consider these kind of tactics abhorrent, then what exactly is their strategy to get things in control? Keep talking about it a lot?


What's the sense in trying to avert an economic catastrophe by forcing an economic catastrophe?

edit: The time to deal with the problem is in the budget negotiations. And really, a deal is out there for the taking. Does anyone believe the Dems wouldn't agree to a package of 50-60% spending cuts and 50-40% tax increases? For the GOP this isn't really about the deficit, if it was they could get a deal. This is about changing the role of government and they're willing to push us towards default in order to win that ideological battle. It's reckless and irresponsible.

molson 05-16-2011 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2470935)
What's the sense in trying to avert an economic catastrophe by forcing an economic catastrophe?


I think obviously the goal is to raise the debt limit, but get a shitload of federal cuts beforehand. The latter will hurt too, but not as much as as raising the debt limit, and not as much as ignoring the problem entirely.

What is the Dems plan to address this? Is there one? I know philosophically, "higher taxes" is most of the plan - but they don't seem to have any idea how to even accomplish that.

panerd 05-16-2011 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2470934)
Buccaneer, I don't think you understand what happens if we don't raise the debt ceiling.


And may I ask how you do? It seems like both parties are all over this on both sides every time it comes up for a vote so why would I believe any of the nonsense coming out of Obama's mouth when in 2006 he said...

"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

The same people who didn't forsee the financial crisis coming, the same people who hung the mission accomplished banner, the same people who can't seem to do anything about the economy now. They are the ones telling us we have to raise the debt ceiling. How can they be so certain? And don't give another bullshit "What if?" like we get with the foolish war on terror all the time. (and the bailout of foreign banks with American tax money) Give me some specifics...

EDIT: And no I have no idea what will happen but hardly think any of the current "experts" have given me one reason to believe they know either.

molson 05-16-2011 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2470938)

"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."



Well obviously, raising the debt limit only has horrible consequences when Republicans wants to to it.

Nobody can know exactly what would happen but clearly both parties have mastered the art of fear mongering, whether it comes to economics or national security.

JPhillips 05-16-2011 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2470938)
And may I ask how you do? It seems like both parties are all over this on both sides every time it comes up for a vote so why would I believe any of the nonsense coming out of Obama's mouth when in 2006 he said...

"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

The same people who didn't forsee the financial crisis coming, the same people who hung the mission accomplished banner, the same people who can't seem to do anything about the economy now. They are the ones telling us we have to raise the debt ceiling. How can they be so certain? And don't give another bullshit "What if?" like we get with the foolish war on terror all the time. Give me some specifics...


For one, the hyperinflation that you're so worried about starts immediately after we're unable to pay our treasury debts. After that the laid-off government workers, retirees without SS and Medicare, and contractors not getting paid throw the country into a deeper recession than 2008. Then the global economy goes into a tailspin with no reserve currency.

Or we could raise the debt limit and negotiate a budget deal that doesn't give the GOP everything they want. Which sounds better?

panerd 05-16-2011 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2470941)
For one, the hyperinflation that you're so worried about starts immediately after we're unable to pay our treasury debts. After that the laid-off government workers, retirees without SS and Medicare, and contractors not getting paid throw the country into a deeper recession than 2008. Then the global economy goes into a tailspin with no reserve currency.

Or we could raise the debt limit and negotiate a budget deal that doesn't give the GOP everything they want. Which sounds better?


According to who? Again, the same economists who forsaw the housing crisis? The same politicians who bailed out every corporation and foreign bank and not the average US citizen? How are you so certain? Or is this the same bullshit as the terror alert system that we once again just have to trust Washington DC on?

RainMaker 05-16-2011 07:09 PM

Anyone who uses the debt ceiling in politics doesn't understand what it is and what it means to not raise it. That goes for Obama, Tea Partiers, or whoever. I'm not defending any politician or taking a side in the debate. Just saying that taking a stand on the debt ceiling on a message board is cute, but it doesn't work in reality. It would amount to the biggest financial catastrophe we've ever seen in this country.

The country definitely needs to get its spending in order. But that isn't going to be done this way. There needs to be serious discussions and voters need to hold politicians accountable for the budgets they put together. The problem isn't politicians, it's the voters. We want a nice balanced budget but we don't want anything cut from it and certainly don't want higher taxes.

RainMaker 05-16-2011 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2470943)
According to who? Again, the same economists who forsaw the housing crisis? The same politicians who bailed out every corporation and foreign bank and not the average US citizen? How are you so certain? Or is this the same bullshit as the terror alert system that we once again just have to trust Washington DC on?

Most economists saw the housing bubble and had talked about it for years. Most of them didn't understand how deep the fraud and deception ran within the financial industry however.

panerd 05-16-2011 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2470944)
Anyone who uses the debt ceiling in politics doesn't understand what it is and what it means to not raise it. That goes for Obama, Tea Partiers, or whoever. I'm not defending any politician or taking a side in the debate. Just saying that taking a stand on the debt ceiling on a message board is cute, but it doesn't work in reality. It would amount to the biggest financial catastrophe we've ever seen in this country.

The country definitely needs to get its spending in order. But that isn't going to be done this way. There needs to be serious discussions and voters need to hold politicians accountable for the budgets they put together. The problem isn't politicians, it's the voters. We want a nice balanced budget but we don't want anything cut from it and certainly don't want higher taxes.


Once again how do you know this? So the only way for me out of credit card debt and mortgage debt is to borrow more? Why does anyone ever delcare bankruptcy? Why are the rules different for countries? Because some economists that are in bed with the government said so?

panerd 05-16-2011 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2470945)
Most economists saw the housing bubble and had talked about it for years. Most of them didn't understand how deep the fraud and deception ran within the financial industry however.


And most us (including you) see the fraud and deception with the politicians. So again why raise the debt ceiling? Why not make these fuckers finally make the tough decisions that you or I would have had to make years ago? Raising the debt ceiling just gives them more time for D vs. R bullshit. I realize it is all political theater and they will raise it again but what I don't understand is why we keep voting these crooks back into office every year.

(And yes I am just some guy on a message board but who the fuck are any of these politicians except for mouthpieces of the corporations? You are very rational most times about how both D/R are just crooks but then fall for their game of "We have to raise the ceiling, we can't cut anything at all!")

molson 05-16-2011 07:24 PM

It's very possible that Democrats freak out and agree to bigger cuts than we ever would have gotten without this perhaps insane Republican gamble. So there's a reason for optimism here, though its not without risk. (And the "risk" just involves shaking this situation up sooner rather than later).

I remember a thread here a while back about how a city couldn't afford some atheistic city services, and citizens were chipping in to help out (cleaning up parks, etc.) So many people here considered that a catastrophe, that the city wasn't paying for this stuff it couldn't afford anymore. How are we going to get past this mindset? I think it's going to take a crisis, or a threatened crisis, or an closely averted crisis. I think maybe that's what (some) Republicans are trying to do here. Get people thinking about the real, practical damage of uncontrollable debt and spending. I don't think it will work, the debt ceiling will be raised and everyone will forget this ever happened and we'll wait obliviously until the next crisis.

JPhillips 05-16-2011 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2470946)
Once again how do you know this? So the only way for me out of credit card debt and mortgage debt is to borrow more? Why does anyone ever delcare bankruptcy? Why are the rules different for countries? Because some economists that are in bed with the government said so?


So if the U.S. stops paying it's bills nothing too bad will happen?

It's insane to push the country into default to prove a point. Literally everything you're worried about as consequences of excess spending will happen overnight if we don't raise the debt limit. Even with massive spending cuts that theoretically balance the budget the debt limit will still need to be raised because things don't equal out on a day to day basis.

You can't apply household economics to governments.

albionmoonlight 05-16-2011 07:30 PM

If you want to stop debt then vote for revenue increases and/or spending cuts.

Voting to keep revenue down and spending up and THEN taking a stand against the debt ceiling like it is some kind of principled fucking position is hypocritical and ignorant.

RainMaker 05-16-2011 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2470950)
And most us (including you) see the fraud and deception with the politicians. So again why raise the debt ceiling? Why not make these fuckers finally make the tough decisions that you or I would have had to make years ago? Raising the debt ceiling just gives them more time for D vs. R bullshit. I realize it is all political theater and they will raise it again but what I don't understand is why we keep voting these crooks back into office every year.

(And yes I am just some guy on a message board but who the fuck are any of these politicians except for mouthpieces of the corporations?)

Again, I don't think you understand what it means to not raise the debt ceiling. I don't think you understand what happens to the economy.

The United States defaulting on their sovereign debt would be catastrophic. It would cause a run on Treasuries, the bond market would implode, and our future interest rates for borrowing would skyrocket. We would no longer be the world's reserve currency.

This also leads to massive financial uncertainty. As we saw with Lehman, when people don't know what's happening, they pull their money out. We'll see a run on money market accounts like we saw in 2008. When some of the safest investments out there start failing, that's some big time trouble.

None of this accounts for what happens on main street. With less money available, we of course see jobs cut everywhere again, spending stalls, and another kickass recession.

The funny thing is your argument has been that we didn't foresee everything in 2008 so we shouldn't pretend to predict the future. But what you aren't mentioning is what we did see in 2008. We saw what happens when the financial markets are fucked with. We saw how they intertwine with each other. We saw what happens when banks have no money. So don't pretend that you weren't given a glimpse into what would happen if we stopped paying our bills.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.