The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

I honestly don't know if you are a neocon or not. I thought you weren't a huge fan of Bush and he is a prototypical neocon.

See, I'd say he lost his claim to that when he tried to snuggle illegal immigrants.

You know what would be the ultimate Ron Paul ticket? (Designed especially to make Jon's head spin ) Paul/Kucinich.

You know that's not an original suggestion, right? I'm virtually certain that it's been mentioned here on more than one occasion.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

See, I'd say he lost his claim to that when he tried to snuggle illegal immigrants.



You know that's not an original suggestion, right? I'm virtually certain that it's been mentioned here on more than one occasion.

I'm not claiming to have created it either. Not sure I saw it on here or not but I am sure I have seen it somewhere. I remember watching the Democrats debate (I was pretty certain at the time that we would be getting one of them so I at least wanted to see what they stood for) and I can remember Clinton and Edwards talking about how Bush misled them on the Iraq war and Obama spouting off his change rhetoric but I can also remember how Kucinich seemed to be honest and consistent on everything.

[Greyroofoo]

I remember Ron Paul saying on numerous occasions that he respects Kucinich's integrity, just not always his policies.

[larrymcg421]

Kucinich had so much integrity that he conveniently abandoned his pro-life position when he decided to run for President.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Why is it that we only get to hear the stupid arguments when it comes to politics?

Glenn Beck makes a stupid statement? Show it.

Palin says something stupid? It's on.

Biden has another brain fart? Top of the news headlines.

Harry Reid with another questionable assertion. It'll be there.

I listened to the linked 30 minute speech from George Will at the CPAC convention. While I certainly understand that some won't agree with some of his points, the wit and clarity with which he delivers his points is refreshing. I wish that we saw more of speeches like this instead of the tabloid coverage that we seem to get on most days. Plus, it was one of the few speeches where I didn't hear any form of religion taking a major or even minor role in his points.

It's well worth a listen if you have the time. He speaks mainly about the current state of entitlement in our society.

George Will, George Will Townhall on USTREAM. Politics

[Flasch186]

Im so glad you agree that the fringes get too much attention and thereby too much Pub, and therefore have too much sway over the flocks in this country. Thats different than some pages back where you said that it didnt matter what XY or Z lied about (to wit Palin Re: Death Panels).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Im so glad you agree that the fringes get too much attention and thereby too much Pub, and therefore have too much sway over the flocks in this country. Thats different than some pages back where you said that it didnt matter what XY or Z lied about (to wit Palin Re: Death Panels).

I have little doubt you've twisted any argument I made, but feel free to link it and I'll respond.

[Flasch186]

im sure...

[lcjjdnh]

The recently released OPR report on the Yoo/Bybee torture memos is a must-read: http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/...ading_this.php

[JPhillips]

Can we allow the President to destroy a village of civilians?

Yes we can!

[Flasch186]

NYC terrorism suspect cites subway attack plan - Yahoo! News

Success in the Civilian courts.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Can we allow the President to destroy a village of civilians?

Umm ... kind of depends upon whose civilians those are I would think.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

NYC terrorism suspect cites subway attack plan - Yahoo! News

Success in the Civilian courts.

Success? He pled guilty and committed 100% of the crime in the U.S.

Show me a jury verdict against a foreign terrorist who has never been to the U.S., and who had been tortured for years in custody before being charged with anything (like KSM). If we convict that guy under civilian rules (or only subject civilian rules to those willing to plead guilty), we're wiping our collective ass with the constitution.

If we're going to do civilian trials, KSM must be released. (Unless there's some little-known SCOTUS precedent that allows you to imprison and torture someone for years and then try him). If that shit happened to Joe from Cleveland, there's no way any conviction against him would stand.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

Success? He pled guilty and committed 100% of the crime in the U.S.

yes. Success in the Civilian courts.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... kind of depends upon whose civilians those are I would think.

Not according to John Yoo.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Success? He pled guilty and committed 100% of the crime in the U.S.

Show me a jury verdict against a foreign terrorist who has never been to the U.S., and who had been tortured for years in custody before being charged with anything (like KSM).

That's a pretty weighty clause.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's a pretty weighty clause.

True - but you could even throw out the torture part of that clause. Under the U.S. constitution, you're not allowed to lock someone up indefinitely without charges. If we're playing by civilian rules, we have to set all those terrorists free anyway.

Or, we can just give the terrorists special rules, in which case it's just a military tribunal disguised as a civilian court. Which is what we'll end up with. I just don't think the anyone deserves political points for doing that.

This guy in Colorado though - just a regular domestic criminal. Not any kind of proof or support that for the proposition that we should rape the constitution where necessary for KSM et al.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I listened to the linked 30 minute speech from George Will at the CPAC convention. While I certainly understand that some won't agree with some of his points, the wit and clarity with which he delivers his points is refreshing. I wish that we saw more of speeches like this instead of the tabloid coverage that we seem to get on most days. Plus, it was one of the few speeches where I didn't hear any form of religion taking a major or even minor role in his points.

Will is articulate and intelligent. That unfortunately doesn't drive ratings. He's part of an old guard that while partisian, did not step over the bounds into the hate speech we see today from most pundits.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not according to John Yoo.

My bad, I thought (for whatever reason) that you were speaking practically instead of theoretically.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Evidently there's a lot of unemployed wife abusers in Nevada.........

Reid: 'Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

[Flasch186]

evidently

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Evidently there's a lot of unemployed wife abusers in Nevada.........

Reid: 'Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Are you arguing his point? Evidence shows that unemployed individuals are much more likely to be abusive. In fact, he probably got it from a Republican-led DOJ report from 2004.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208346.pdf

Swing and a miss on the daily talking point.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Are you arguing his point? Evidence shows that unemployed individuals are much more likely to be abusive. In fact, he probably got it from a Republican-led DOJ report from 2004.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208346.pdf

So he's got all of these important things to be doing and he's talking about points made by a Republican Congress that got blown out of the majority position? If he wants to play family counselor, that's his business. Either pass a Wife Beater Stimulus package or get on to more important matters.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So he's got all of these important things to be doing and he's talking about points made by a Republican Congress that got blown out of the majority position? If he wants to play family counselor, that's his business. Either pass a Wife Beater Stimulus package or get on to more important matters.

No, he's talking about a statistic that states a negative of high unemployment while trying to pass a jobs bill to curb that.

Did you even read the article you posted?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So he's got all of these important things to be doing and he's talking about points made by a Republican Congress that got blown out of the majority position? If he wants to play family counselor, that's his business. Either pass a Wife Beater Stimulus package or get on to more important matters.

Seriously? This is your rant for the day? I'm guessing that you didn't read the "article" (I'd paraphrase it for you, but it is only a couple hundred words, so I doubt that I could cut it down a whole lot). If you aren't interested in reading about a small quote about a positive byproduct of a bill about jobs, you really have no business reading a site like the Hill.

Go back to your blogs and I'm sure you can find a dozen headlines that are far, far more infuriating than this one.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No, he's talking about a statistic that states a negative of high unemployment while trying to pass a jobs bill to curb that.

Did you even read the article you posted?

So are we passing a bill to create jobs or are we passing a bill to quell the tempers of men who should have enough self control to do that regardless of whether or not they have a job? I guess we've set a lower standard of what is required of people and how they behave. Who knew that Congress could pass bills to limit the use of females as punching bags?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Seriously? This is your rant for the day? I'm guessing that you didn't read the "article" (I'd paraphrase it for you, but it is only a couple hundred words, so I doubt that I could cut it down a whole lot). If you aren't interested in reading about a small quote about a positive byproduct of a bill about jobs, you really have no business reading a site like the Hill.

You see positives. I see $15B more in needlessly wasted money.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So are we passing a bill to create jobs or are we passing a bill to quell the tempers of men who should have enough self control to do that regardless of whether or not they have a job? I guess we've set a lower standard of what is required of people and how they behave. Who knew that Congress could pass bills to limit the use of females as punching bags?

Did you read the article that you posted?

It is something he mentioned in support of the jobs bill. He did not hold a press conference, issue a press release, or call a special session of congress to talk about it.

Again, I have to wonder if you understand that websites and publications like the Hill are for people who actually care and hang on every word that politicians give. You should probably stick to the AP wire if you want to sift through headlines to get your daily news (although you probably still will not be able to discuss them in-depth, you won't look as silly to others).

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You see positives. I see $15B more in needlessly wasted money.

Ah -- you are shifting things.

I didn't comment about whether or not the bill was positive. Whether it is or not (probably won't do much, in my opinion), less domestic violence is a good thing. Can we agree on that?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Ah -- you are shifting things.

I didn't comment about whether or not the bill was positive. Whether it is or not (probably won't do much, in my opinion), less domestic violence is a good thing. Can we agree on that?

Kinda a 'duh' statement there. But this bill isn't going to stop any domestic violence situations. It's silly to even suggest that.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Kinda a 'duh' statement there. But this bill isn't going to stop any domestic violence situations. It's silly to even suggest that.

Somehow, I knew you wouldn't make any concessions -- even that less domestic violence is a good thing. If you don't even understand that conflicts about jobs and money can lead to problems in marriage and domestic abuse, then you should probably quit trying to read adult publications or watching adult programs.

The "duh" moment was taking the time to respond to something that you posted.

Have fun playing in your thread.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Kinda a 'duh' statement there. But this bill isn't going to stop any domestic violence situations. It's silly to even suggest that.

Man, sometimes it's really hard to fathom the retardedness of your act (I put that in there intentionally). When you are pushing for a bill that you would like to pass, it's quite typical to support your argument with this thing we normal people call facts. Now, we all know facts have no place in your tiny head unless they are spit out on to a blog about something they want you to find outrageous, but for most people, we want these facts to support arguments. Now, Harry Reid, while a toolbag, is doing what most people in congress SHOULD be doing, which is using real-life actual facts to support a position. Now sure, he's not telling them to vote for the bill to stop domestic violence. He's trying to tell them, in a fact-based manner, that there may be other positive effects of this bill outside of potential job creation.

Now congress is surely stupid and broken, and whether or not this bill has merits on its own is questionable, none of which you brought up in your original point. If you are going to do this over every bill (since the 15B is minuscule compared to what gets passed around), at least have the common sense and courtesy to put some real life, actual intelligent thought in to the partisan drivel you wish to push. You seem relatively not dumb, it shouldn't be hard.

[cartman]

It will be hard for me to weigh in on this until I know the state of Harry Reid's shirt sleeves.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Somehow, I knew you wouldn't make any concessions -- even that less domestic violence is a good thing. If you don't even understand that conflicts about jobs and money can lead to problems in marriage and domestic abuse, then you should probably quit trying to read adult publications or watching adult programs.

Fair enough. You're buying what Uncle Harry is selling. We'll agree to disagree.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Man, sometimes it's really hard to fathom the retardedness of your act (I put that in there intentionally). When you are pushing for a bill that you would like to pass, it's quite typical to support your argument with this thing we normal people call facts. Now, we all know facts have no place in your tiny head unless they are spit out on to a blog about something they want you to find outrageous, but for most people, we want these facts to support arguments. Now, Harry Reid, while a toolbag, is doing what most people in congress SHOULD be doing, which is using real-life actual facts to support a position. Now sure, he's not telling them to vote for the bill to stop domestic violence. He's trying to tell them, in a fact-based manner, that there may be other positive effects of this bill outside of potential job creation.

Now congress is surely stupid and broken, and whether or not this bill has merits on its own is questionable, none of which you brought up in your original point. If you are going to do this over every bill (since the 15B is minuscule compared to what gets passed around), at least have the common sense and courtesy to put some real life, actual intelligent thought in to the partisan drivel you wish to push. You seem relatively not dumb, it shouldn't be hard.

We simply disagree here. I find no merit in passing the bill on two levels.

1. I don't care whether it's 15B or 1.5T on the price tag. If it's wasted money, it's wasted money. Wasteful spending adds up.

2. Using the domestic abuse angle on this is silly at best. If we look in 6 months and find that domestic abuse numbers didn't go down in Nevada once the jobs were created (which they won't), will we use similarly flawed logic to pronounce the job bill a failure? I'm sure some will, but it's just as stupid an argument because it should have never been part of this discussion in the first place until Reid made it so. It's a good way to put mustard on a shit sandwich.

[miked]

Surprisingly, I concur with most of what you said. It is most likely a poop sammich. However, it doesn't bring in to doubt the validity of the facts he is presenting. It is very hard to quantify job creation, as we can see by the widely varying numbers being thrown around by every single organization. Due to this, people are most likely looking for other metrics. If you see a correlation between unemployment and domestic violence (which their evidently is), and you deem domestic violence to be bad (which evidently most of us do), then would it make sense to support a bill from a broader perspective than just creating jobs, i.e. the general betterment of society. If jobs go up (this bill aside), then as a correlate, if the data are correct, domestic violence should go down. Domestic violence going down cuts healthcare costs, law enforcement/court costs, DFACs costs, etc. So I can see why one would want to promote this aspect. Also, we all know this bill most likely sucks and it's questionable how many (if any) jobs this will create. So if I can paint you as not only against job creation, but against the general betterment of society, that's probably a good strategy.

Now all this is fine and dandy, but you weren't talking about the actual merits of the bill (I actually haven't seen any details, or criticisms of those details). You are bashing a senator for using facts to justify why we should spend 15B on creating jobs in their state, in that it could extend to more than just simple job creation. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested. I'm also not a fan of spending for spending, but once again the silliness of you jumping all over this when you've been silent for years is what everyone is up in arms about. Suddenly you care about spending. I know, I know, you were against the silly republican spending of the 2006-8 years, but you weren't copying and pasting from every blog about what Senator Brownback and company wanted to spend your money on.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

If you see a correlation between unemployment and domestic violence (which their evidently is), and you deem domestic violence to be bad (which evidently most of us do), then would it make sense to support a bill from a broader perspective than just creating jobs, i.e. the general betterment of society. So if I can paint you as not only against job creation, but against the general betterment of society, that's probably a good strategy.

Or if you see that there's a problem with domestic violence, you could target a bill to solve that rather than strap it on to the jobs bill like a Nevada hooker. Good strategy? Maybe. Best for our country? No

Originally Posted by miked

You are bashing a senator for using facts to justify why we should spend 15B on creating jobs in their state. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested.

He's using this domestic abuse angle to dress up an otherwise worthless bill. That's my problem with it.

Originally Posted by miked

Suddenly you care about spending. I know, I know, you were against the silly republican spending of the 2006-8 years, but you weren't copying and pasting from every blog about what Senator Brownback and company wanted to spend your money on.

Once again, I certainly appreciate and welcome the higher standard of proof that I'm held to in these conversations. I've been very clear about my stance on most points. I'm not even remotely a fan of Sam Brownback, so you can probably cease with any comparison there.

[JPhillips]

It's a small point, but this isn't a 15bn spending bill, it's largely a tax cut bill.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's a small point, but this isn't a 15bn spending bill, it's largely a tax cut bill.

Good point. Neither is good given the extremely high debt load.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Once again, I certainly appreciate and welcome the higher standard of proof that I'm held to in these conversations.

Honestly, I think most of us would be happy if you even read the talking point articles you post before you post them.

This exchange is a good example. It took you three posts before you realized the article was more than just fodder for making fun of a seemingly-random Harry Reid soundbite, but was actually about a jobs bill.

You almost saved yourself, though, by quickly hewing to your usual topic of fiscal restraint (as long as we're talking about spending by Democrats, of course). But your inability to understand the connection between male unemployment and domestic abuse rather weakens your argument that the bill is completely without merit, not to mention that the point of a jobs bill isn't solely to prevent domestic abuse, as you seem to be suggesting.


In conclusion: quality work. I look forward to more incomprehensible hilarity from you tomorrow.

[Flasch186]

sad

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Fair enough. You're buying what Uncle Harry is selling. We'll agree to disagree.

No, I'm not a fan of Uncle Harry and he is not a senator from my state (or any state that I have ever lived in), nor one that I have or ever would vote for. Please do not use your substandard logic to characterize me.

Up until today, I really thought you were putting on an act and liked to do a little internet sparring during your down times at work. Now, I am certain that you are just a dipshit. Forgive me for engaging you.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Honestly, I think most of us would be happy if you even read the talking point articles you post before you post them.

This exchange is a good example. It took you three posts before you realized the article was more than just fodder for making fun of a seemingly-random Harry Reid soundbite, but was actually about a jobs bill.

You almost saved yourself, though, by quickly hewing to your usual topic of fiscal restraint (as long as we're talking about spending by Democrats, of course). But your inability to understand the connection between male unemployment and domestic abuse rather weakens your argument that the bill is completely without merit, not to mention that the point of a jobs bill isn't solely to prevent domestic abuse, as you seem to be suggesting.


In conclusion: quality work. I look forward to more incomprehensible hilarity from you tomorrow.

I read the article, so your assumption is misguided at best. I realized from the start exactly what he was doing. He was trying to make a lousy bill seem somehow palatable, which it's not. My posts never made any indication otherwise, though you did try to spin it as such. I certainly never suggested anything remotely close to the bill being solely to present domestic abuse, as you have incorrectly assumed.

As for incomprehensible hilarity, you need look no further than the White House of late. Their direction of policy resembles an Iraqi SCUD missile at this point. Point and pray.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

No, I'm not a fan of Uncle Harry and he is not a senator from my state (or any state that I have ever lived in), nor one that I have or ever would vote for. Please do not use your substandard logic to characterize me.

Up until today, I really thought you were putting on an act and liked to do a little internet sparring during your down times at work. Now, I am certain that you are just a dipshit. Forgive me for engaging you.

I never said you were a fan of Harry. I said you were buying what he was selling. That's a much different statement.

I'll ignore the rest. You're better than that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I never said you were a fan of Harry. I said you were buying what he was selling. That's a much different statement.

I'll ignore the rest. You're better than that.

I love this new act. Anyone who calls you out is lowering their previously high standards.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I love this new act. Anyone who calls you out is lowering their previously high standards.

It's easy to cross the line between heated discusion and name calling. I'm sure I've done it before as well. It happens. Doesn't make him a bad guy.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I read the article, so your assumption is misguided at best.

This would be a more effective argument if you didn't already have a track record which indicates to the contrary.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This would be a more effective argument if you didn't already have a track record which indicates to the contrary.

I did read it and there was nothing in my comments that would indicate anything contrary. But you're allowed to believe whatever you want. I could have a certified letter stating that I read it and I'm not sure it would stand up to this crowd as proof.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I did read it and there was nothing in my comments that would indicate anything contrary. But you're allowed to believe whatever you want. I could have a certified letter stating that I read it and I'm not sure it would stand up to this crowd as proof.

But that would only be because the letter said something different than you claimed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So are we passing a bill to create jobs or are we passing a bill to quell the tempers of men who should have enough self control to do that regardless of whether or not they have a job? I guess we've set a lower standard of what is required of people and how they behave. Who knew that Congress could pass bills to limit the use of females as punching bags?

I don't think the article was that hard to decipher. They are trying to pass a jobs bill that he felt would lower unemployment. He stated a statistic that shows that lower unemployment leads to less domestic violence.

I don't understand what you think people in Congress should be discussing when they support or don't support a bill. When someone promotes a defense bill, they typically lay out some of the benefits (less terrorists, safer cities, etc). When someone promotes an education bill, they typically lay out some of the benefits (smarter kids, safer cities, less poverty).

A byproduct of lower unemployment is less domestic violence. If this bill happens to lower unemployment, it will also lower domestic violence. Now I've never read the bill, don't have any opinion on it at all. But you tried to poke fun at Harry Reid for using that correlation which happens to be 100% correct. You weren't discussing the bill.