The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People who send other people's kids off to war to die for their cause while they sit on a computer at home are cowards. You believe in a cause enough that you feel it's worth giving up life for, be a man and give up yours for it.

This concept that you're painting of a bunch of scared kids and convicts heading off to fight a war that they don't want to fight simply is a grasp at straws that doesn't mirror the situation in any way. The vast majority of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan support the cause that they are fighting for.

Also, your continued reliance on what I or others do regarding military service has no foothold whatsoever. I volunteered when I was younger and was not allowed to join the armed forces based on a medical condition. You're barking up the wrong tree here.

[flere-imsaho]

Reality: the payback period for investing $3 trillion into alternative energy and fuels is going to be more than 4 years. However, if one imagines that, starting in 2003, we spent the Iraq money on this instead, it's interesting to think where we'd be now, and where we'd be in 4 years, vis-a-vis our dependence on foreign (specifically Middle Eastern) oil. Also bear in mind that the vast majority of our oil does not come from the Middle East.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People who send other people's kids off to war to die for their cause while they sit on a computer at home are cowards. You believe in a cause enough that you feel it's worth giving up life for, be a man and give up yours for it.

Were you in favor of an armed response in Afghanistan? What about Darfur? Somalia?

[Flasch186]

for me, yes, yes, and yes. Not all spearheaded by the US though, but a role nonetheless.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The vast majority of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan support the cause that they are fighting for.

Every poll I've seen on this for Iraq states that this is not, in fact, the case.

{citation needed}

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

for me, yes, yes, and yes. Not all spearheaded by the US though, but a role nonetheless.

I'm assuming though, that you don't share Raimaker's opinion that if you support a war, you should fight on the front lines there (or if you do, then were you on the front lines in those 3 places?).

He would call you a coward, unless you were there.

(I have a suspicion though, that this "rule of thumb" only applies to wars people disagree with).

[flere-imsaho]

What's funny, is that Flasch and I had this argument about 4 years ago.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Every poll I've seen on this for Iraq states that this is not, in fact, the case.

{citation needed}

Great, we're back to discussing polls again

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Reality: the payback period for investing $3 trillion into alternative energy and fuels is going to be more than 4 years. However, if one imagines that, starting in 2003, we spent the Iraq money on this instead, it's interesting to think where we'd be now, and where we'd be in 4 years, vis-a-vis our dependence on foreign (specifically Middle Eastern) oil. Also bear in mind that the vast majority of our oil does not come from the Middle East.

I don't know if it's as simple as: deduct $ from Iraq, put it somewhere else. The Iraq money went to American companies. That created tax revenue, jobs, economic activity - basically it's a stimulus package. There's no doubt that Iraq is responsible for some of our federal budget issues (just as the present stimulus packages will be, for decades), but it's quite a stretch to say that if the Iraq war didn't happen, that Bush (or Gore, or Kerry), would have practically been able to put $3 trillion over that time into alternative energy. What does that even mean, tax cuts, or actually bumping private companies companies out and the government taking it on? I'm not sure the alternative energy industries could possibly generate enough income to warrant $3 trillion in tax cuts/subsidies.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm assuming though, that you don't share Raimaker's opinion that if you support a war, you should fight on the front lines there (or if you do, then did were you on the front lines in those 3 places?).

He would call you a coward, unless you were there.

(I have a suspicion though, that this "rule of thumb" only applies to wars people disagree with).

of course not, I think that that is a baseless emotional argument that I hope he comes down to earth on.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Were you in favor of an armed response in Afghanistan? What about Darfur? Somalia?

No. Blowing these people up does nothing but make them hate us more.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What's funny, is that Flasch and I had this argument about 4 years ago.

Ah yes, here we go.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Great, we're back to discussing polls again

I could do anecdotes instead, if you'd like. Only one guy in my brother's unit thought the war was a good idea, and he wasn't so sure by the time they left.

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know if it's as simple as: deduct $ from Iraq, put it somewhere else. The Iraq money went to American companies. That created tax revenue, jobs, economic activity - basically it's a stimulus package. There's no doubt that Iraq is responsible for some of our federal budget issues (just as the present stimulus packages will be, for decades), but it's quite a stretch to say that if the Iraq war didn't happen, that Bush (or Gore, or Kerry), would have practically been able to put $3 trillion over that time into alterntative energy. What does that even mean, tax cuts, or actually bumping private companies companies out and the government taking it on. I'm not sure the alternative energy industries could possibly generate enough income to warrant $3 trillion in tax cuts.

Oh I agree 100%. If the Iraq war doesn't happen it's not as if someone's going to appropriate the estimated cost of the Iraq war for another purpose. Appropriations doesn't work like that.

This is merely an argument of spending X for Y result as juxtaposed with theoretically spending the same X for Z result.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No. Blowing these people up does nothing but make them hate us more.

I don't think Somalia/Darfur were about "blowing people up".

And you really would have allowed the Tailban regime to continue unfettered in Afghanistan? That's pretty scary. I wonder how far their influence would have spread by now. Pakistan?

I mean where would you draw the line? Wait until the Taliban has nuclear weapons?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

And you really would have allowed the Tailban regime to continue unfettered in Afghanistan? That's pretty scary. I wonder how far their influence would have spread by now. Pakistan?

Ironically, this is pretty much exactly what the Bush Administration did and exactly where we are now with those fuckers.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm assuming though, that you don't share Raimaker's opinion that if you support a war, you should fight on the front lines there (or if you do, then were you on the front lines in those 3 places?).

He would call you a coward, unless you were there.

(I have a suspicion though, that this "rule of thumb" only applies to wars people disagree with).

There is a big difference in supporting a war and advocating it.

I personally believe that war should only be fought when you would be willing to give your life for the cause. Otherwise you are essentially saying that your life is more important than theirs.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think Somalia/Darfur were about "blowing people up".

And you really would have allowed the Tailban regime to continue unfettered in Afghanistan? That's pretty scary. I wonder how far their influence would have spread by now. Pakistan?

I mean where would you draw the line? Wait until the Taliban has nuclear weapons?

Not at all. There are other ways to stop regimes like the Taliban. Do you really believe that blowing the shit out of Afghanistan has ended the threat of terror?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

You really think it's that simple?

Though I hope you're right, because that would certainly mean we'll be off oil in Obama's first term.

Really? I must have missed the $3T alternative energy bill we passed

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not at all. There are other ways to stop regimes like the Taliban. Do you really believe that blowing the shit out of Afghanistan has ended the threat of terror?

So how would President RainMaker "end the threat of terror"? And is there anyone with national qualifications that share your views?

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Really? I must have missed the $3T alternative energy bill we passed

SI

If that's all it takes, Obama will surely do it. He's not exactly stingy with the taxpayer wallet. And really, getting off oil is definitely worth that cost.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Ironically, this is pretty much exactly what the Bush Administration did and exactly where we are now with those fuckers.

Fortunately, despite their rebound, it's not exactly 2001 again.

Both the Bush and Clinton administrations dropped the ball, though it's kind of understandable in a political climate where reaction is more important than prevention.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

So how would President RainMaker "end the threat of terror"?

I don't think you ever end the threat of terror. Terrorism has been prevelant in the Middle East, but it's hardly isolated to that part of the world (Oklahoma City, school shootings, etc).

I think you need to figure out why these people want to blow us up (it's not that they hate our freedoms). Are there things we can change in our policy that would reduce terrorism? Are there ways we can reduce their overall power? Start revolutions? Put pressure on neighboring countries like Pakistan to stop it? Even start re-education programs so that the next generation of people aren't born with an inherent hatred toward us. Maybe it just comes down to putting massive security procedures in our country to ensure they don't get in.

I wish I had the answer to the problem. People have been trying to stop it for centuries. I do know that trying to blow them all up has never worked and never will.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

If that's all it takes, Obama will surely do it. He's not exactly stingy with the taxpayer wallet. And really, getting off oil is definitely worth that cost.

Ah, so you're making stuff up. Got it.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think you ever end the threat of terror. Terrorism has been prevelant in the Middle East, but it's hardly isolated to that part of the world (Oklahoma City, school shootings, etc).

I think you need to figure out why these people want to blow us up (it's not that they hate our freedoms). Are there things we can change in our policy that would reduce terrorism? Are there ways we can reduce their overall power? Start revolutions? Put pressure on neighboring countries like Pakistan to stop it? Even start re-education programs so that the next generation of people aren't born with an inherent hatred toward us. Maybe it just comes down to putting massive security procedures in our country to ensure they don't get in.

I wish I had the answer to the problem. People have been trying to stop it for centuries. I do know that trying to blow them all up has never worked and never will.

First of all Darfur and Somalia weren't even about terrorism in the context of US-involvement - are people cowards if they advocate a military response in those places but don't sign up for the army?

I'm sure if it were possible to just "start a revolution" in Afghanistan or Iraq, we would have done it. I'm sure we've been supporting anti-government organizations in those countries and others for years. But dictatorships and military governments are pretty good at stamping out dissenters before they grow. What kind of pressure can you put on Pakistan? They've been a decent ally for the U.S, but they have their own problems, and they don't even have control of their whole country (and I don't think it's as easy as telling them to "get control!"). And how in the world to you start re-education programs in foreign countries that don't want you there? Why would islamic fundamentals turn over their children's schooling to the U.S.?

And as much as you try to paint it with a simple brush, I assure you that the analysis of these problems at the federal government goes beyond "let's blow stuff up!". Sometimes they win, sometimes they fail, but it's a very complicated world and these are highly educated and accomplished people trying to work out these issues.

Blowing stuff up (though the actual objective there was regime change) in Afghanistan was critically important, and it has made our country safer. Most liberals (even Michael Moore), agreed with combat operations there.

Iraq is more debatable. Obviously the entire war was sold to the public on flawed intelligence (that Bill Clinton also apparently fell victim to), but that one reason was by no means the only reason, and it's not the only possible benefit of success in Iraq. Now that we're there, should we try to realize those benefits, or should we just invalidate any positive thing that might come from that war because of mistakes 6 years ago? Obama saw the light on this, he was originally a "pull out immediately" guy, and he changed his tune after visiting the country and meeting with officials there during the campaign (and I really admired the way he was willing to change his view on that).

I don't think there's many people that are OK with US soldiers dying just out of vengeance, or to "blow stuff up". Most people are interested in the security of the United States as a whole. A few hundred (or less) causalties in Afghanistan might have prevented 9/11. And maybe Iraq has created a terrorist magnent or "ground zero" for battle that has taken the focus of terrorist groups away from international terrorism, and towards that war. We'll never know. Whether you agree or not, that's the hope of people, for very few does it begin and end with 'blowing stuff up". That's where you see a lot of disrespect for people's contrary opinions. We all have the same goals. If someone has a different opinion about achieving a goal, it doesn't mean that their goal is necessarily different.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Ah, so you're making stuff up. Got it.

SI

Are you following the context of this or do you just jump in wherever to be a troll?

I was responding to Rainmaker's suggestion that we wouldn't be dependent on oil anymore if we spent the Iraq war money on alternative energy. I argued that wasn't practical to simply spend money over 4-5 years to get off oil, though if it was, Obama would surely do it (which would give us proof that it was possible).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

First of all Darfur and Somalia weren't even about terrorism in the context of US-involvement - are people cowards if they advocate a military response in those places but don't sign up for the army?

There is a difference in support and advocating. I support many endeavors that our military has taken part in. But I'm not actively advocating and demanding it. Advocating is when you are jumping on your soapbox and saying "we must send our troops here or there".

If you are someone calling for military action on someone, you should be willing to put up the same risks the soldiers that you are sending there should. Otherwise you are simply saying your life is more valuable than theirs. When MBBF says we need to fight this war in Iraq but I'm not fighting it, he is essentially saying his life is more valuable than those soldiers.

Originally Posted by molson

I'm sure if it were possible to just "start a revolution" in Afghanistan or Iraq, we would have done it. I'm sure we've been supporting anti-government organizations in those countries and others for years. But dictatorships and military governments are pretty good at stamping out dissenters before they grow. What kind of pressure can you put on Pakistan? They've been a decent ally for the U.S, but they have their own problems, and they don't even have control of their whole country (and I don't think it's as easy as telling them to "get control!"). And how in the world to you start re-education programs in foreign countries that don't want you there? Why would islamic fundamentals turn over their children's schooling to the U.S.?

And as much as you try to paint it with a simple brush, I assure you that the analysis of these problems at the federal government goes beyond "let's blow stuff up!". Sometimes they win, sometimes they fail, but it's a very complicated world and these are highly educated and accomplished people trying to work out these issues.

Blowing stuff up (though the actual objective there was regime change) in Afghanistan was critically important, and it has made our country safer. Most liberals (even Michael Moore), agreed with combat operations there.

Iraq is more debatable. Obviously the entire war was sold to the public on flawed intelligence (that Bill Clinton also apparently fell victim to), but that one reason was by no means the only reason, and it's not the only possible benefit of success in Iraq. Now that we're there, should we try to realize those benefits, or should we just invalidate any positive thing that might come from that war because of mistakes 6 years ago? Obama saw the light on this, he was originally a "pull out immediately" guy, and he changed his tune after visiting the country and meeting with officials there during the campaign (and I really admired the way he was willing to change his view on that).

I don't think there's many people that are OK with US soldiers dying just out of vengeance, or to "blow stuff up". Most people are interested in the security of the United States as a whole. A few hundred (or less) causalties in Afghanistan might have prevented 9/11. And maybe Iraq has created a terrorist magnent or "ground zero" for battle that has taken the focus of terrorist groups away from international terrorism, and towards that war. We'll never know. Whether you agree or not, that's the hope of people, for very few does it begin and end with 'blowing stuff up". That's where you see a lot of disrespect for people's contrary opinions. We all have the same goals. If someone has a different opinion about achieving a goal, it doesn't mean that their goal is necessarily different.

It's an extremely complex issue. I don't subscribe to the notion that I have any of the answers in this. There are much smarter men and women who would be able to brainstorm much better ideas.

But I do know that blowing up countries and killing innocent civilians does not change anything. In five years, the people of Afghanistan will still not like us. They will still want us to perish. They don't view us as liberators saving them. They view us as the guys who bombed the crap out of their village and killed someone in their family. We may succeed in temporarily killing enough terrorists to make a difference today, but another generation will come up with the same hatred toward us. Israel has been fighting terrorism with force for decades and not had any success in curbing it.

Ultimately that may lead us down the path where we simply can't stop them. That our best solution is to create our own energy and leave that part of the world to blow themselves up. Without oil, they're Africa. Let them fight their dictators and form their revolutions like the Western world has for centuries.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Are you following the context of this or do you just jump in wherever to be a troll?

I was responding to Rainmaker's suggestion that we wouldn't be dependent on oil anymore if we spent the Iraq war money on alternative energy. I argued that wasn't practical to simply spend money over 4-5 years to get off oil, though if it was, Obama would surely do it (which would give us proof that it was possible).

Maybe it wouldn't get us off oil completely, but it would put a huge dent.

The fact that we are still running engines on oil is an embarassment to the country. Out of all the technological advances over the last 30+ years, the automobile industry has essentially stood still.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

When MBBF says we need to fight this war in Iraq but I'm not fighting it, he is essentially saying his life is more valuable than those soldiers.

Unless he thinks that an Iraq war will save lives in future, via less "necessary" military conflicts, or that a stable and democratic Iraq might otherwise save more American lives in the long run. You may disagree with that, but it's not fair to say that MBBF is choosing 4,000 U.S. deaths instead of 0, or putting his life ahead of anyone else's. He's choosing 4,000 U.S. deaths over the unkown cost of not fighting that war, which some obviously feel would be more than 4,000 lives.

I know that many think that no military action should be used until after an attack, and that military action isn't justified if the results of not acting can't be boiled down to a scientific certainty. It's a scale of what one is willing to tolerate, basically it's about risk tolerance.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe it wouldn't get us off oil completely, but it would put a huge dent.

The fact that we are still running engines on oil is an embarassment to the country. Out of all the technological advances over the last 30+ years, the automobile industry has essentially stood still.

I agree that the automotive industry sucks for their lack of innovation. They should of course, suffer the consequences. But they apparently own the government (the same government people think can bring about a new energy age). How can new ideas give consumers different options when the old dinosaurs are so well protected, and has Washington in its' pocket?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I agree that the automotive industry sucks for their lack of innovation. They should of course, suffer the consequences. But they apparently own the government (the same government people think can bring about a new energy age). How can new ideas give consumers different options when the old dinosaurs are so well protected, and has Washington in its' pocket?

I'm completely against the auto bailouts. I'd rather see the money go to innovative people and companies.

As for government bringing on the new energy age. Technology is actually one of the areas that our government has been extremely succesful at.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm completely against the auto bailouts. I'd rather see the money go to innovative people and companies.

That would be the people that were taxed (or are about to be) to fund the bailout in the first place. FWIW, I agree.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People who send other people's kids off to war to die for their cause while they sit on a computer at home are cowards. You believe in a cause enough that you feel it's worth giving up life for, be a man and give up yours for it.

I saw others had already quoted you and responded, but I had to throw my two cents in as well:

If you feel so strongly about this, have you protested the war? Have you given money to protest groups?

All in all, I'd love to sit down and have a beer with you if you're ever in the Oklahoma area.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I saw others had already quoted you and responded, but I had to throw my two cents in as well:

If you feel so strongly about this, have you protested the war? Have you given money to protest groups?

All in all, I'd love to sit down and have a beer with you if you're ever in the Oklahoma area.

I've never gone to one of the protests and in a weird way actually think they have a negative effect on the cause. Living in Chicago and working in the loop at the time, the protests annoyed the crap out of me because they made me late coming home.

I have donated to groups and politicians I agree with, but it's tough. The anti-war groups and libertarian organizations can get a bit crazy. I do vote though and try and research the candidates as much as I can in my area.

If you're ever in Chicago, we'll have to catch a Bulls game.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That would be the people that were taxed (or are about to be) to fund the bailout in the first place. FWIW, I agree.

Yeah, I think you can be selective about the money. I'd actually love to see them throw a big chunk of change to the guys at NASA and see what they can come up with. Been reading a lot about NASA lately and it's incredible how much stuff they've come up with.

These guys are able to fly a piece of metal to Mars, land it, and power it on its own while it sends data back to Earth. I have a feeling they could find a way to build a car that doesn't require oil.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you're ever in Chicago, we'll have to catch a Bulls game.

What, not a Bears game? I'd love to see Cutler go down in flames!


Anyhow, Prime Time tomorrow night for Obama. It should be an interesting address.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Anyhow, Prime Time tomorrow night for Obama. It should be an interesting address.

Speaking of which, I noticed that Fox will not be showing the address.......

Fox sticking with schedule instead of Obama

I actually am happy to see this happen. Not because I'm a big fan of 'Lie to Me' by any means. I've believed for several years now that blocking out time for a presidential address on the major networks is a waste of time. There's a plethora of cable news networks that these more pedestrian addresses could be shown on (Gibbs even admitted that the reason for this address is nothing more than to mark Obama's first 100 days). Save the times to show the address on the major networks when there's a pressing need. The increase in addresses already under Obama makes people less likely to pay attention to the address. It used to be that an address meant something important needed to be said. Now, it just feels like a free PR opportunity of late with Bush and Obama.

[lungs]

At least I can watch baseball.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Speaking of which, I noticed that Fox will not be showing the address.......

Fox sticking with schedule instead of Obama

I actually am happy to see this happen. Not because I'm a big fan of 'Lie to Me' by any means. I've believed for several years now that blocking out time for a presidential address on the major networks is a waste of time. There's a plethora of cable news networks that these more pedestrian addresses could be shown on (Gibbs even admitted that the reason for this address is nothing more than to mark Obama's first 100 days). Save the times to show the address on the major networks when there's a pressing need. The increase in addresses already under Obama makes people less likely to pay attention to the address. It used to be that an address meant something important needed to be said. Now, it just feels like a free PR opportunity of late with Bush and Obama.

Agree that there should be a little more discretion on how much the POTUS goes on TV, but there are many people without cable and receive only OTA signals. If all the major networks didn't carry the address, then some people wouldn't be able to see it.

[Flasch186]

yeah it should be required that at least 1 OTA carries it than voluntary after that so perhaps it would go on a rotation or something, I dunno...it's not like they get advertising on it so it's not a good thing to get the 'premiere' POTUS events.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Agree that there should be a little more discretion on how much the POTUS goes on TV, but there are many people without cable and receive only OTA signals. If all the major networks didn't carry the address, then some people wouldn't be able to see it.

Sure. I understand that. I think that important addresses still have their place on the major networks. Tonight is little more than a glorified PR appearance.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

yeah it should be required that at least 1 OTA carries it than voluntary after that so perhaps it would go on a rotation or something, I dunno...it's not like they get advertising on it so it's not a good thing to get the 'premiere' POTUS events.

PBS would be a pretty good place to put a press conference like the one tonight. That's available to all and doesn't require an advertising interruption.

[lordscarlet]

Yeah, some of us don't have cable.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Yeah, some of us don't have cable.

Yeah, but you could just walk down the street and watch it in person.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Are you following the context of this or do you just jump in wherever to be a troll?

I was responding to Rainmaker's suggestion that we wouldn't be dependent on oil anymore if we spent the Iraq war money on alternative energy. I argued that wasn't practical to simply spend money over 4-5 years to get off oil, though if it was, Obama would surely do it (which would give us proof that it was possible).

Hey, you were the one who made the cheap statement as one of your main arguing points.

If you had given Obama the money we had pissed away on the Iraq war, he definitely would have put it to better use. But that money's spent so you can't just say "let's spend a ton more" when the guy is trying to get us out of there so we aren't spending that money (and instead trying to spend it on things at home).

If we had instead spent that $3T over the next 10 years, let's say, as opposed to 4, I would be doing cartwheels with what we could have done. This goes back to the types of infrastructure projects I was excited about in the recession thread.

Huge investments in new energy technologies- once we hit a tipping point where mass production of another source is more efficient than oil, this country will convert 80%+ over in a matter of 10 years. That's just how it works with discoveries- if you can save serious money by doing it, it's going to happen. And if the government directs that towards clean, renewable sources- then that's better for us as a whole.

We need completely revamped water and electrical grids- a lot of efficiency to be had. Hell, start on a water pipeline system crossing the US so we are no longer decimating our natural water tables to feed places like Phoenix and LA or just to get water to areas that will not have any in 10 years in our breadbasket like western Kansas and Nebraska. We lose those food supplies because we don't have any foresight and there's another major import we'll be looking at.

I'd still love to see high speed rail crossing our country as well as light rail in every major city. Keep as many cars off the streets and planes out of the air as possible. If it's cheaper and quicker to go by rail than car- why not let them drive?

But, back to before- the money is already spent and the argument that "hell, throwing a ton of money away is what Obama loves to do!" is just facetious and you know it. You don't have to agree with it to see what he's thinking. I know there's a bunch of spending there that I don't like. But that doesn't mean I just blithely toss out that Obama's spending money like a drunken sailor and wouldn't expect to be called on it.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Hey, you were the one who made the cheap statement as one of your main arguing points.

The cheap point is claiming what the "$3 trillion" could have done, when in no practical universe could anyone "spend $3 trillion on alternative energy" (whatever that means). Why didn't Clinton do that? Why didn't Gore make that a part of his campaign, or Kerry? Why isn't Obama doing it?

The government isn't like a text sim where you can shift that $3 trillion to something else.

Flere made the point that it's just an abstract hypothetical point to think of what the $3 trillion might have done, and I think that's fair. But let's not pretend that money actually could have gone anywhere.

That money went right back to the U.S., like I said, to American companies. We didn't go to an international walmart and "piss the money away" on French planes or something. No different then a stimulus package (from a financial perspective, obviously the collateral costs were a lot higher). The $3 trillion didn't vanish.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

The cheap point is claiming what the "$3 trillion" could have done, when in no practical universe could anyone "spend $3 trillion on alternative energy" (whatever that means). Why didn't Clinton do that? Why didn't Gore make that a part of his campaign, or Kerry? Why isn't Obama doing it?

The government isn't like a text sim where you can shift that $3 trillion to something else.

No one would have approved spending $3T over 5 years on any cause, boondoggle or otherwise, save for a war of unknown length where the populace was scared into supporting it.

EDIT: After your clarifying point, we're in agreement and essentially arguing the same point. I just take it a step further and opine about how it's just brutal to see how that money went to waste and think about how it could have been spent here if not pissed away abroad.

SI

[sterlingice]

Ok, after both of our edits, I think we've reached a quorum

SI

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yeah, but you could just walk down the street and watch it in person.

"Can I help you sir?"

"Yes, I'm here to see the press conference."

"Um, do you have your credentials?"

"No, I just want to watch it."

"I'm sorry, sir, we can't let you in."

"But I don't have cable!"

[sterlingice]

I want to see this exchange

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

So it turns out the Obama administration is insensitive, too:

NYC financial workers see low-flying planes, panic :: WRAL.com

How could they be so insensitive! This is ridiculous! Burn the witch!

(Sorry, can't keep the outrage up. It was a stupid thing to do, but I just can't muster the real outrage my Republican leanings are trying to push out...)

GOP, New Yorkers, whatever outrage. I saw Jon Stewart have a segment about it last night. I know this is probably going to incur some wrath but it should be said.

This happens in any other city in American and people think "hey, the air show is in town". In New York, supposedly home of the biggest, toughest, baddest guys on the block, everyone goes all "duck and cover" then starts filling the air with outrage.

A single person with PTSD is completely understandable and it's a difficult thing to live with, I'd imagine. An entire city claiming it needs to get over themselves.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

GOP, New Yorkers, whatever outrage. I saw Jon Stewart have a segment about it last night. I know this is probably going to incur some wrath but it should be said.

This happens in any other city in American and people think "hey, the air show is in town". In New York, supposedly home of the biggest, toughest, baddest guys on the block, everyone goes all "duck and cover" then starts filling the air with outrage.

A single person with PTSD is completely understandable and it's a difficult thing to live with, I'd imagine. An entire city claiming it needs to get over themselves.

SI

The White House has apologized, and Obama was apparently "furious".

It was just a really retarded thing to do, though not really a huge deal. But it sounds like a few buildings were evacuated.

I do think there might be a couple other reason New Yorkers might have reacted differently than someone in Kansas City, other than not being the "biggest, toughest, baddest guys on the block". I mean, how dare New Yorkers be jumpy about low-flying 747s! Does their jumpiness negatively impact you in any way?