![]() |
|
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
You expect them to say otherwise? |
Why would Rummy, Graham, unnamed military and CIA sources, etc. lie?
|
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
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:
|
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. |
Quote:
It's not ... the government uses planes to paint the sky blue so it positively affects our psychology and we turn into better consumers. |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Attachment 2891 |
I sure hope no terrorists suffered any temporary physical discomfort so that we could shoot Osama in the head.
|
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.
|
Probably not, it just sounds like it was incorrectly reported at first, and the White House is setting the record straight.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Reuters has pics released from a Pakistani official of three dead men killed in the assault.
|
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
So how bout those republican challengers. Santorum? They still make that shit?
|
Isn't Santorum too busy trying to kill the National Weather Service to run for president?
|
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.
|
Quote:
Pawlenty looks good. ![]() |
He's gay.
|
Quote:
If I get a Palin v. Trump televised debate I'll be happy. |
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:
|
Lot of leaked information on all the details of the whole situation that has been let out. A little weird to me.
|
Looks like we have them on their heals. Hopefully the information they got is coming in handy.
|
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:
Another article with more description and links to videos. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ack-Obama.html |
Quote:
LOL!!! |
More libertarian minded tea partiers.
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 . |
So can we finally agree that a big portion of the tea party are nothing more than the far right of the GOP?
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Maybe, let's also agree on what the far left is. Then we'll be getting somewhere. :) |
Quote:
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". |
Who said this?
Quote:
or this? Quote:
or this? Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
? Where did I say anything like that? |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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:
Also of interest (and related to harder line TP'ers stances) Quote:
|
In other words, people who'd "destroy the village to save it".
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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..
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
{shrug} Call it what you like but often the product of some compromises isn't worth saving. |
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
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... |
Quote:
What, you mean that we can't have conservatives of other colors? Shit, somebody better call Herman. |
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. |
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.
|
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:
|
Quote:
I'm sure an intense investigation into the porn will be conducted. |
Quote:
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. |
We hit the debt limit today. We've got @11 weeks before the GOP throws the country into default.
Madness. |
Oh yeah - I meant to make a "Happy Debt Limit Armageddeon" post this morning.
Whoops. |
So you're saying now would be good time to start looking for a job in Europe or East Asia?
|
Quote:
Europe isn't good unless they can straighten out the PIG. East Asia won't do well if the USA allows itself to crash. |
What about Brazil? How's Brazil looking?
|
Quote:
Not sure about Brazil the county, but, Brazilian women...looking good. |
I'm brushing off my spanish* knowledge so I can move to Brazil once we default.
*dumb american joke. |
Quote:
I did pick Brazil for a specific reason. :D (Although Argentina is a more than viable alternative) |
Quote:
I commend you on your choice/s. :) There's just something about that continents women... |
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. |
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?
|
Quote:
Some say it's madness to have gotten to this point, as well as madness to continue the insanity. |
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:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
I would submit that the head idiot that can't think past his re-election is Obama. |
Quote:
And the tea party posterboy Reagan raised it more than any president in history. |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
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? |
Buccaneer, I don't think you understand what happens if we don't raise the debt ceiling.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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? |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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!") |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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.