The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Greyroofoo]

But really though, aliens?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

But really though, aliens?

Do you think masturbation is more likely to result in your death? Seems like they have it pegged pretty accurately to me.

[Greyroofoo]

You you think earthquakes are just as likely to cause death as aliens?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

You you think earthquakes are just as likely to cause death as aliens?

For the average person on the planet? Maybe. How many have died from earthquakes on the east coast of the US during your lifetime?

[Greyroofoo]

Didn't know that table applied only to the east coast of the US.

But I'm pretty sure more people have died from earthquakes than from aliens.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Didn't know that table applied only to the east coast of the US.

But I'm pretty sure more people have died from earthquakes than from aliens.

Yeah, you can be pretty sure of that. That one is a bit odd, but I wonder how much more likely it really is. The vast majority of human beings on this planet will never be involved in an earthquake, much less die from one.

[sterlingice]

The number of people in history who have died from earthquakes measures in the millions. I don't think aliens are there... yet.

(But that would cause orders of magnitude difference in the calculation, presumably)

SI

[Tekneek]

Deaths from U.S. Earthquakes

According to this, we're talking about less than 5,000 people in the US since 1812.

Earthquakes with 50,000 or More Deaths

Much more significant numbers on here.

Best number I found for probability is 1-in-131,890. Asteroid impact is 1-200,000.

Definitely something wrong with those other numbers.. Although the likelihood of masturbation killing you is probably on par with alien attack.

[Greyroofoo]

Taliban leader in secret talks was impostor

It's nice to know that our leadership has a good handle on things.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Taliban leader in secret talks was impostor

It's nice to know that our leadership has a good handle on things.

One of the posters underneath that story mentioned that the U.S. wasn't even in those talks, that it was just NATO, Afghanistan, and EU members. Too lazy to verify this, but if it's true, my utter contempt for NATO and the UN continues to grow unabated.

[Greyroofoo]

I changed the link to the actual article instead of the comments.

But I have to wonder if the whole Afghan situation can ever be resolved in a positive way.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I changed the link to the actual article instead of the comments.

But I have to wonder if the whole Afghan situation can ever be resolved in a positive way.

I am not sure that any situation in the middle east can ever be resolved in a positive way. We are talking about two completely different ways of life and cultural values. We want them to be like us, which will never happen. They hate us for what we represent (freedom of choice, capitalism, etc.), and we just can't seem to catch on to these differences and how they threaten us. It does not appear that a change in political party in office matters at all. Neither Bush nor Obama have a clue as to how to handle any of it, and the problems really go back a long, long way (although I would put a lot of blame on Carter).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

I believe in a system where United Airlines can have guys stick their hands down my pants and Southwest Airlines can have people take body scans of me and American Airlines can do the "2008" screening. Each airline will spend their own money and the people that are scared of terror can fly with the airline that does patdowns. If American's plane goes down they go out of business, no government bailout. If United's business practices lose them customers maybe they stop with the patdowns. Why is the government involved in keeping us safe here but not in other places? Why are there no full body scans on buses or cruise liners? Unfortunatly maybe that's coming. One can only hope not, I don't want to live in a society where I can full body scanned before a Cardinal's game or my wife gets felt up before she goes in to watch a play. Don't know what makes the airplanes so special. The only answer I can come up with is guilt over fucking up on 9-11.

Here is the problem with your plan. If United Airlines screws up, someone can fly a plane into my office building and kill thousands of people. You see, if United Airlines drove their plane around their terminal for hours, I'm totally fine with what you suggest. But they don't. They take that plane in the air and fly over all our homes. They fly in PUBLIC airspace. They fly their planes in OUR space.

If you can't understand the difference in an airplane going to the movie theater, I don't know what to tell you.

And I'm not some big government guy either. I'm pretty libertarian in most of my beliefs. But this notion that we can't decide who gets to fly over our homes in giant airborne missiles is silly.

[Greyroofoo]

I really think TSA is between a rock and a hard place. People hate security measures but if they relax security and another 9/11 happens because of it, people are going to start wondering why TSA wasn't doing more to stop it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here is the problem with your plan. If United Airlines screws up, someone can fly a plane into my office building and kill thousands of people. You see, if United Airlines drove their plane around their terminal for hours, I'm totally fine with what you suggest. But they don't. They take that plane in the air and fly over all our homes. They fly in PUBLIC airspace. They fly their planes in OUR space.

If you can't understand the difference in an airplane going to the movie theater, I don't know what to tell you.

And I'm not some big government guy either. I'm pretty libertarian in most of my beliefs. But this notion that we can't decide who gets to fly over our homes in giant airborne missiles is silly.

LOL. Sure you are and for the most part I lean Democratic. As for your first paragraph I heard George W. Bush and his cronies making this argument for years. You also forgot to include that they hate us for our freedom.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here is the problem with your plan. If United Airlines screws up, someone can fly a plane into my office building and kill thousands of people. You see, if United Airlines drove their plane around their terminal for hours, I'm totally fine with what you suggest. But they don't. They take that plane in the air and fly over all our homes. They fly in PUBLIC airspace. They fly their planes in OUR space.

If you can't understand the difference in an airplane going to the movie theater, I don't know what to tell you.

And I'm not some big government guy either. I'm pretty libertarian in most of my beliefs. But this notion that we can't decide who gets to fly over our homes in giant airborne missiles is silly.

Buses drive in public areas as well. So does a car/moving van (potentially) full of explosives. They can run straight into buildings as well (i.e. Oklahoma).

I agree with panerd's view of the airlines but I would add the caveat that all of those same airlines would then claim they cannot stay in business because of that...or the dynamic of having airline choices will go away because of the (potential) expenses...or certain airports would then not accept certain airlines. It would get messy & chaotic for a little while.

Which brings me to my end game thinking. Given the amount of intervention constantly needed (i.e. bailouts)...maybe flying isn't something we can afford to do as often as we want to as cheaply as we want to. Maybe when we fly...it better be dam important to do it, both in business & personal travel.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by panerd

You also forgot to include that they hate us for our freedom.

I still remember that. Whenever I think of that, I think of TSA/PATRIOT ACT/NSA wiretapping, etc, and figure those terrorists must be pretty damn happy about it. If they hated our freedom, then we gave them what they wanted when we started willingly giving it up. I also remember people saying that if you aren't out shopping, or flying on planes, then you're letting the terrorists win. Funny how they would attach anything to it in order to try and get you to do their biding.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Maybe when we fly...it better be dam important to do it, both in business & personal travel.

I wish people already had that view. I just don't see the point in paying thousands of dollars to travel somewhere just for one meeting, when all of the information could be provided over the Internet and nobody had to leave their homes/offices. Talk about inefficiencies. I'm usually on the losing side of this argument, though.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I wish people already had that view. I just don't see the point in paying thousands of dollars to travel somewhere just for one meeting, when all of the information could be provided over the Internet and nobody had to leave their homes/offices. Talk about inefficiencies. I'm usually on the losing side of this argument, though.

We live in a society that loves to waste money.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I still remember that. Whenever I think of that, I think of TSA/PATRIOT ACT/NSA wiretapping, etc, and figure those terrorists must be pretty damn happy about it. If they hated our freedom, then we gave them what they wanted when we started willingly giving it up. I also remember people saying that if you aren't out shopping, or flying on planes, then you're letting the terrorists win. Funny how they would attach anything to it in order to try and get you to do their biding.

I am most amused that the loss of freedom has somehow become a partisan issue. (I don't notice it on this board as much, some people have always been willing to give up freedom and some have stayed pretty consistant even with Obama in office) But the perfect example is how anyone in the media on the left was all over Bush for the patriot act and gitmo and the war on terror but now that Obama is president fox news is all over the TSA while the liberals (who are supposed to stand for freedom) are all ok with "small intrusions" like full body scanning and airport patdowns of grandmas and little kids. Sad that that this is somehow partisan and sad that anyone could possibly take the other side of freedom. But I guess we must always beware the boogeyman because there could be a monster or serial killer hiding under our beds.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by panerd

...airport patdowns of grandmas...

Now that's nasty.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

I am most amused that the loss of freedom has somehow become a partisan issue. (I don't notice it on this board as much, some people have always been willing to give up freedom and some have stayed pretty consistant even with Obama in office) But the perfect example is how anyone in the media on the left was all over Bush for the patriot act and gitmo and the war on terror but now that Obama is president fox news is all over the TSA while the liberals (who are supposed to stand for freedom) are all ok with "small intrusions" like full body scanning and airport patdowns of grandmas and little kids. Sad that that this is somehow partisan and sad that anyone could possibly take the other side of freedom. But I guess we must always beware the boogeyman because there could be a monster or serial killer hiding under our beds.

I don't think you can equate patriot act and gitmo with full body scans and patdowns. false equivelency there.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't think you can equate patriot act and gitmo with full body scans and patdowns. false equivelency there.

Not really false equivalency, the TSA & pat downs are the new thing. As best I can tell neither gitmo or the patriot act has changed under the Obama (and Democrat majority) administration.

The true patriots are Feingold (1 against 98 in the senate) and these 66 courageous representatives http://www.bordc.org/involved/concer...ail.php?bill=1
who have voted against the nonsense Patriot Act from the beginning.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I wish people already had that view. I just don't see the point in paying thousands of dollars to travel somewhere just for one meeting, when all of the information could be provided over the Internet and nobody had to leave their homes/offices. Talk about inefficiencies. I'm usually on the losing side of this argument, though.

I'm seeing cutbacks on flying a little here & there in my business. But yeah, that's down from "silly & ridiculous" reasons to fly to just "unnecessary".

But I liken this to using the subway vs. taking a cab(not a perfect analogy...but bear with it).

I am likely more safe taking a cab where I am the only passenger being dropped directly at my destination. But if I am not able/willing to pay as much I can take the subway which has many more passengers, some of which may desire to rob/kill me...but certainly not all, most, or even many...but the threat is much more possible.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

Not really false equivalency, the TSA & pat downs are the new thing. As best I can tell neither gitmo or the patriot act has changed under the Obama (and Democrat majority) administration.

You are correct. In fact, Obama signed the extension of the patriot act.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

The true patriots are Feingold (1 against 98 in the senate) and these 66 courageous representatives http://www.bordc.org/involved/concer...ail.php?bill=1

Feingold was a fucking moron in a rare show of Senate sanity.

On the bright side, it was consistent with a great deal of his tenure. He was subject to the stopped-clock rule occasionally during his nearly two decades in D.C. -- a few gun-related votes along with a couple of confirmation votes -- but on the whole he was pretty reliably awful.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Feingold was a fucking moron in a rare show of Senate sanity.

On the bright side, it was consistent with a great deal of his tenure. He was subject to the stopped-clock rule occasionally during his nearly two decades in D.C. -- a few gun-related votes along with a couple of confirmation votes -- but on the whole he was pretty reliably awful.

You don't know how much you strengthen my case to about 95% of the rest of the board with your opinion on Feingold.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

But the perfect example is how anyone in the media on the left was all over Bush for the patriot act and gitmo and the war on terror but now that Obama is president fox news is all over the TSA while the liberals (who are supposed to stand for freedom) are all ok with "small intrusions" like full body scanning and airport patdowns of grandmas and little kids.

I have also noticed this rather blatant hypocrisy on both sides, to the extent it even caused me to have an extremely rare difference of opinion with Ann Coulter (although she at least redeemed herself by proposing expanded use of profiling, I'd prefer to see the two in combination).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Not really false equivalency, the TSA & pat downs are the new thing. As best I can tell neither gitmo or the patriot act has changed under the Obama (and Democrat majority) administration.

The true patriots are Feingold (1 against 98 in the senate) and these 66 courageous representatives http://www.bordc.org/involved/concer...ail.php?bill=1
who have voted against the nonsense Patriot Act from the beginning.

Sure it is...body scanners and pat-downs are farrrrrr less intrusive than Patriot Act. They're also in effect, voluntarily. Versus the Patriot Act, which has at its core plenty of provisions for the government to conduct warrantless surveilance.

And you can't equate them with GITMO at all.

Nice try though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

You don't know how much you strengthen my case to about 95% of the rest of the board with your opinion on Feingold.

You seem to be confusing "don't know" with "don't care". Sociopolitically much of this board is so far beyond redemption that you really don't have to work at "strengthening your case".

I simply had to comment in order to distract myself from the wave of nausea that comes with hearing praise for that clueless twit. (I didn't think I'd make it to FB to play Bejeweled Blitz in time). So far lunch managed to stay down but it was touch-and-go there for a couple of minutes.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

You are correct. In fact, Obama signed the extension of the patriot act.

Very true that they haven't changed. Also fucking sickening that they haven't changed.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sociopolitically much of this board is so far beyond redemption that you really don't have to work at "strengthening your case".

You're such a hateful individual. What did the world ever do to little Jon as he was growing up to cause adult-Jon to have so much anger and hate directed at people that are different from him? I feel sorry for you.

And I don't really mean that in a belittling or mocking kind of way...I'm genuinely curious how you ended up this way (although I don't expect a straight answer and even if i were to get one this isn't really the thread for it).

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I am likely more safe taking a cab where I am the only passenger being dropped directly at my destination. But if I am not able/willing to pay as much I can take the subway which has many more passengers, some of which may desire to rob/kill me...but certainly not all, most, or even many...but the threat is much more possible.

Using technological resources to conduct meetings without traveling to them has financial savings and safety savings. There is not really a negative side to it, other than not being able to touch people and go out drinking with them.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Using technological resources to conduct meetings without traveling to them has financial savings and safety savings. There is not really a negative side to it, other than not being able to touch people and go out drinking with them.

In some industries though it just doesn't cut it.

Certainly it's viable for some, but not for others.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Using technological resources to conduct meetings without traveling to them has financial savings and safety savings. There is not really a negative side to it, other than not being able to touch people and go out drinking with them.

Our company actually uses Telepresence for a lot of internal meetings. Works great for a larger company that can't realistically introduce every to everybody but has employees that work on the same teams in different locations.

But there are still a lot of schools of thought out there (and I can't refute them all, personally). Sales being one of the more common.

In my business, top-tier vendor companies (and their most common/popular products) will almost always be on our radar but many times the 2nd tier companies will not. This is why they (the 2nd tier companies) must make these trips as they have to get face to face with us or they will be overlooked. And (to date) we have not been asked/tried/cared/bothered to integrate into a vendor's own system (if applicable). I'm not even sure we would even entertain the idea until/unless it became more commonplace in other industries.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

LOL. Sure you are and for the most part I lean Democratic. As for your first paragraph I heard George W. Bush and his cronies making this argument for years. You also forgot to include that they hate us for our freedom.

So I can assume you are opposed to giving individuals breathalyzers? I mean the government has no business deciding who is allowed to drive your privately owned vehicle. That should be up to the vehicle owner.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So I can assume you are opposed to giving individuals breathalyzers? I mean the government has no business deciding who is allowed to drive your privately owned vehicle. That should be up to the vehicle owner.

Are you driving on public roads?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I've actually heard libertarians making this argument seriously, so don't be too surprised.

Well he'd have to if he wants to stay consistent with his reasoning on airplanes. If the government should have no say in who gets into airplanes because they are privately owned, they should have no say in who drives a privately owned automobile either. In fact, we can stretch this to licenses too. If I own my car, they shouldn't be involved in whether I let my 14 year old cousin borrow it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Are you driving on public roads?

Are you flying in public airspace?

[Greyroofoo]

Well I own all the airspace, but nobody seems to recognize my claim

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well he'd have to if he wants to stay consistent with his reasoning on airplanes. If the government should have no say in who gets into airplanes because they are privately owned, they should have no say in who drives a privately owned automobile either. In fact, we can stretch this to licenses too. If I own my car, they shouldn't be involved in whether I let my 14 year old cousin borrow it.

I know where you're going RM...but I dont think it applies.

The difference is in "who" is authorized to operate the vehicle. Drunk and/or unlicensed pilots can't fly planes any more than drunk and/or unlicensed drivers can drive cars.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I know where you're going RM...but I dont think it applies.

The difference is in "who" is authorized to operate the vehicle. Drunk and/or unlicensed pilots can't fly planes any more than drunk and/or unlicensed drivers can drive cars.

It is certainly a dilemma. I'm not sure where I stand on it.

Reason says that vehicles pose a more clear and present danger to all of us, but there is nobody regulating who gets into them before they are allowed onto the road. While they can regulate who can LEGALLY drive them, that says nothing about what they are carrying (nor do you have to be a legal driver, you simply need to be able to start the vehicle and you can drive it anywhere).

While those of us on the ground could be hurt/killed due to debris from a plane that exploded at a high altitude, I wonder what the risk is to the average person from that? We are always at more risk driving to work than we are from terrorism. Just how far are we willing to go for this safety we all seem to want?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So I can assume you are opposed to giving individuals breathalyzers? I mean the government has no business deciding who is allowed to drive your privately owned vehicle. That should be up to the vehicle owner.

would be opposed to giving every single driver a breathalyzer every time they drove in response to a small handful of incidents no matter how shocking they were to the American psyche. Sorry but the example you provide would involve guilty until proven innocent so probably not. If a cop has suspected I am impaired than I should have the choice but face going to jail regardless of whether I take it or not.

And in response to both you and Stevebollea I am very much opposed to sobriety checkpoints. They put the onus of police work on the citizens and not the cops and have been proven just to be money making rackets for other fines and make zero dent into drunk driving incidence. If they really want to catch drunk drivers hang outside a bar (better yet, a cop bar) but don't act like you care by shutting down a highway while the people stumble out of Busch Stadium and the Edward Jones Dome after every sporting event.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Sure it is...body scanners and pat-downs are farrrrrr less intrusive than Patriot Act. They're also in effect, voluntarily. Versus the Patriot Act, which has at its core plenty of provisions for the government to conduct warrantless surveilance.

And you can't equate them with GITMO at all.

Nice try though.

Agree 100%. But Obama and the Democrats did nothing about the Patriot Act or Gitmo so I am just talking about yet another step in the road towards less freedom.

I actually have sympathy for Obama on Gitmo. IMO he is too scared of the backlash he would get if he shut down Gitmo and something happened to take a stand. Not a true leader but I don't think many of them on any side are. (Including "Libertarians" like Bob Barr) As far as the Patriot Act... Obama has been voting for this sham all along so his support as president doesn't surprise me in the least.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

There is not really a negative side to it, other than not being able to touch people and go out drinking with them.

Well it also makes it more difficult to arrange kickbacks & hatch other schemes without leaving some sort of electronic record (semi )

Your original point though is a good one, I believe the average person would be stunned to realize how much money changes hands on the basis of personalities as much as anything else.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

would be opposed to giving every single driver a breathalyzer every time they drove in response to a small handful of incidents no matter how shocking they were to the American psyche. Sorry but the example you provide would involve guilty until proven innocent so probably not. If a cop has suspected I am impaired than I should have the choice but face going to jail regardless of whether I take it or not.

That's hypocritical though. You should be opposed to all breathalyzers. Your reasoning for the airport security is that the government has no business deciding who can be on a private airplane. But then you say they have a right to decide who can drive a private car. You can't say the government has no business ensuring the safety of people in the sky when it comes to a private vehicle, but should be ensuring the safety of people on the ground when it comes to a private vehicle.

You need to stick to your government has no say in the use of private vehicles regardless of it happening on the ground or air.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It is certainly a dilemma. I'm not sure where I stand on it.

Reason says that vehicles pose a more clear and present danger to all of us, but there is nobody regulating who gets into them before they are allowed onto the road. While they can regulate who can LEGALLY drive them, that says nothing about what they are carrying (nor do you have to be a legal driver, you simply need to be able to start the vehicle and you can drive it anywhere).

While those of us on the ground could be hurt/killed due to debris from a plane that exploded at a high altitude, I wonder what the risk is to the average person from that? We are always at more risk driving to work than we are from terrorism. Just how far are we willing to go for this safety we all seem to want?

That really is the million dollar question. I think most Americans are reasonable enough to look at your car example and agree that while there is a risk, there will always be risks in life. However they are unable to understand that flying in considerably safer and poses far less risks but them get scared by politicians and military leaders that convince them TSA, Gitmo, Patriot Act, war on terror, endless war in the Middle East, etc are going to decrease that chance of death. Which I won't argue isn't true by statistcially it's fucking stupid either way and I would say the endless war makes us much less safe than all of the security measures combined do make us safe.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I will point out that it's interesting that once again, the average American (note - not the people on this thread, but the average American) could care less about civil liberties until it started to affect them. Warrentless wiretapping? Cool. The NSA telling AT&T to eavesdrop on private conversations? Sure. Indiscriminately manhandle and impede black and brown people on public sidewalks? Go ahead. Touch my junk? WHERE'S MY FREEEEEEDOM.

Unfortunately, this just furthers my belief that a government could institute martial law and eliminate elections and a large chunk of the populace really wouldn't care as long as prices stayed low at Target and Dancing With the Stars came on every week.

You won't get an argument from me here at all. When did I lose the backing of all of my liberal friends though on this stuff? (like you said in general more than this board) That's right when Obama was elected. He is Bush III when it comes to any of this nonsense.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's hypocritical though. You should be opposed to all breathalyzers. Your reasoning for the airport security is that the government has no business deciding who can be on a private airplane. But then you say they have a right to decide who can drive a private car. You can't say the government has no business ensuring the safety of people in the sky when it comes to a private vehicle, but should be ensuring the safety of people on the ground when it comes to a private vehicle.

You need to stick to your government has no say in the use of private vehicles regardless of it happening on the ground or air.

Not sure I understand how these are the same at all? The government should most certainly be involved when pilots decide to drink and fly that is very dangerous. I just don't think it has an effect and is cost effective at all to do it to every pontential driver or flyer. Explain how I am misunderstanding your analogy. I really don't think I get what you are saying.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I will point out that it's interesting that once again, the average American (note - not the people on this thread, but the average American) could care less about civil liberties until it started to affect them. Warrentless wiretapping? Cool. The NSA telling AT&T to eavesdrop on private conversations? Sure. Indiscriminately manhandle and impede black and brown people on public sidewalks? Go ahead. Touch my junk? WHERE'S MY FREEEEEEDOM.

Unfortunately, this just furthers my belief that a government could institute martial law and eliminate elections and a large chunk of the populace really wouldn't care as long as prices stayed low at Target and Dancing With the Stars came on every week.

I would like to piggyback and reply again on what I think is a great post. I think we are getting closer than you think that what you describe in the 2nd paragraph. And I can only imagine that (god forbid) if there ever is another major attack we will be in almost a totalitarian state. But you can still will be able to get anything you want delivered to your door, anything you want on tv, just don't question the government. I am pretty sure all of the brutal regimes had to appease at least some of the people who would be willing to look the other way. Aren't there all kinds of books about this in Nazi Germany?