10-17-2007, 09:08 PM | #122 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
I've come off my third sabatical from this forum, this last one going nearly four months, seems like nobody missed me. 2700+ posts the majority of which stem from this forum. I get burned out trying to debate when I feel like the majority of my posts go ignored or at best dismissed. I've conceded a lot over the years, and most would be surprised probably by how much I've learned and shifted from this forum. Its just tired when people like Host just saturate with information and leave little room for discussion.
Its not fair to knock the guy, he has good resources, he contributes, and he sure as shit isn't some liberal bogey man, but he sucks at relaying them into any message I care to converse with. I try and make my posts as legit as possible. Obviously they are based in opinion, but I strive to back it up with facts whether historical or legal. If I say X is legit because Y precedent and Z America law says so, I rarely felt like I ever got a fair counter point, or answer even. Is it weird that a 4 year veteran with so much contribution feels over looked? And yes I want your pity because my ego is irreversibly scarred. edit: and being a veteran I miss Filth, maybe its due to my absence but I remember his presence a lot more.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
10-18-2007, 04:42 AM | #123 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
|
|
10-18-2007, 04:45 AM | #124 (permalink) |
Asshole
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
So what would fix the problem you guys see? Is it just a simple matter of new blood or is there a greater underlying issue that needs to be dealt with? Personally, I think that the fatigue is more indicative of the country's woes than anything else.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo |
10-18-2007, 08:45 AM | #125 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
For me personally, i don't feel the need to get in a heated discussion about certain old favorites, like abortion, because it's been done, and i don't have anything to add, and i doubt there's much to get out of it. My interest in discussing politics on the internet is waning, mainly because i'm super busy and partly because i get my kicks elsewhere both on the tfp and off.
For other issues- a lot of the action in the politics forum was in reference to the war in iraq, and other typical conservative-liberal bones of contention, and between prowar conservative-y folk and antiwar-liberal-y folk. Ever since the last election there has been a curious silence from most of the prowar conservative-y folk on the tfp, which is possibly representative of the nationwide trend towards viewing the war in an unfavorable light. Those discussions still exist in other places, but they mostly consist of the types of back-and-forth that tends to get discouraged here, i.e. belligerent and confrontational. I don't know, maybe in some ways political discussions tend to resemble street fights and the tfp is more akin to a boxing ring? |
10-20-2007, 07:47 PM | #126 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
I guess my issue is that I'm ok with discussing issues, but partisan crap really gets me turned off. I can read newspapers, so rehashing one party's or the other's talking points about the latest supposed outrage isn't all that interesting. It's much more interesting to read independent thought. Put up something that's well-reasoned and it's a pleasure to read and dis/agree - particularly when people recognize that they can disagree and still get along fine.
|
10-21-2007, 01:13 AM | #127 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
....I've started a new thread about my POV of Norman Hsu vs. Jack Abramoff. |
|
12-10-2007, 01:06 PM | #128 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Where is the old heated debate?
The conditions in Iraq have improved, no longer an issue? Democrats in Congress getting nothing done, no longer an issue? Democratic leaders knew about CIA extreme questioning techniques, no longer an issue? Iran had a nuclear weapons program up to 2003 according to an NIE, discontinued after the US invaded Iraq, no longer an issue? Chavez going down in flames, no longer an issue? Bill Clinton joining in on "lib" double speak of being against the war in Iraq when he was for it, not an issue? What happened to the SCHIP bill? These are rhetorical questions, I already know the answers. Some of us have the ability to admit when we are on the wrong side of an issue, some of us don't.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
12-10-2007, 03:12 PM | #129 (permalink) | ||||||||
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
Quote:
When Bush announced the surge in January, he said the goal was to give the Iraqi goverment "breathing space to make progress" and yet, the central government has still barely met 3-4 of the 18 benchmarks that were established nearly a year ago and are no closer to reconciliation or an oil revenue sharing law...progress? The training of Iraqi military and police has been plodding along for 3 years now and still is highly infiltrated by the various militia and $1 billion of military equipment missing....progress? Quote:
The first minimum wage bill in 10 years, the most comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform in years, contracting reform, implementation of most of the recommendations of the 9-11 commission that were stalled, an energy bill that focused on energy conservation (new mileage standards, etc) and more alternative energy R&D funding rather than tax breaks to big oil, new trade/copyright protections in relations with China, restoration and reform of college tuition assistance, new investments to improve US competitiveness (double R&D budget and expanded focus on science and math education)..... not all of the above saw their way through to enactment and there would have been more progress if not for the unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans through "extended debates" (filibusters), not to mention Bush vetoes. Oh...lets not forget the oversight of the DOJ that resulted in the exposure and correction of the worst politicization of the department in years. Quote:
Quote:
BTW, one of the findings of the phase II pre-war intel report from the Senate Intel that the Democrats forced to be released in May after Republicans held itup for two years concluded that: "military action to eliminate Iraqi WMD would not cause other states in the region to abandon their WMD programsBush chose not to share this intel with Congress or the American people prior to askng them to go to war. Quote:
Lets see what happens with the bi-lateral trade deals with various South American countries that Bush will be pushing next year. Quote:
Or McCain (and other Repubs) on their recent tours to Iraq saying Baghdad is safer and thriving....as they walk through the streets of Baghdad in body armor, surrounded by US forces, humvees and air cover. Quote:
ace...you have a unique view on these issues and progress or lack thereof, but as you said, "you already know the answers"
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 12-10-2007 at 08:11 PM.. Reason: added a few links for those with an open mind |
||||||||
12-10-2007, 11:53 PM | #130 (permalink) | ||||||||
Banned
|
It is late, so I'm just going to respond to ace's first point:
Quote:
GUESS WHERE THE IRAQI PARLIAMENT HAS BEEN SINCE LATE LAST FRIDAY, DEC. 7TH? Please read on: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 12-11-2007 at 12:34 AM.. |
||||||||
12-11-2007, 08:54 AM | #131 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
I believe it was in June when Democratic leaders in Congress sent Bush a letter saying that the "surge" had failed to produce the intended results. the intent of the "surge" was to curb the violence to give the Iraqi people a real opportunity to establish a strong central government. The "surge" was a needed step in a process. The US needed to show the Iraqi people and other government and people in the region a strong commitment to help fix a problem we contributed to creating.
If we had followed the desires of Democratic leaders, I truly believe the conditions in Iraq would be worse today with the entire region closer to being in total chaos. Given, the circumstances at the time, cutting and running would have been the worst thing to do. Bush deserves credit for listening to his military leaders and his desire to bring stability to Iraq rather than cutting and running. It is true that the Iraqi government is still struggling and the majority of the Iraqi people support a timetable for US withdrawal. However, given the "surge", when we do leave we will leave a country better prepared than if we followed the "cut and run" strategy. I presented this originally as a rhetorical question because I did not believe those who strongly dislike Bush could possibly give him credit for anything positive developing in Iraq.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
12-11-2007, 09:08 AM | #132 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
Thats great, ace.
Except, intentionally or not, you mischaracterized every Democratic leadership legislative proposal from June through the latest. None could accurately be described as "cut and run" but rather as plans for phased redeployment tied to "real" benchmarks to hold he Iraqi government accountable to take meaningful steps towards reconciliation. Instead, Bush continues to lower the bar for Iraqi political "successes" and lets them continue to suck off the US tit while our troops are still acting as police in a sectarian conflict. I believe it was also in August that Republican leaders said they would be prepared to take a different course if the Iraqis did not show meaningful progress towards meeting the political benchmarks by September. I guess they were just blowing more hot air. But back to reality.... ace...do you think arming 60,000+ Sunni "concerned local citizens", some of whom US forces acknowledge may be "sympathizers of al Qaida in Iraq and other anti-government organizations" is "progress"? Or the unaccounted for 12,000+ US weapons provided to the Iraqi government, but much of which may have ended up in the hands of Shia militiant groups. Is arming both sides of the sectarian conflict really a sign of "leaving the country better prepared"?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 12-11-2007 at 09:50 AM.. |
12-11-2007, 10:27 AM | #133 (permalink) | ||||||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Instead, the goals themselves have been reduced. We've lost nearly a thousand more troops since the Baker Hamilton ISG report was made public 55 weeks ago. Our military is weaker and even more bogged down, and we've spent a shitload more money, with even...an undefined, and unforecast addtional amount, to be borrowed and spent on this military and foreign policy disaster, in the future. And, it is extremely doubtful that the US military is even "bogged down" in the right place: Quote:
Quote:
This is a disaster, ace, and the history of it will be written that way. No IDB or WSJ editorial will be able to smear enough lipstick on this pig for the rest of us to embrace what you are perceiving: <h3>ace, on page 25 of the Iraq Study Group Report, linked below, here is the key phrase that you and president Bush...ignored, overlooked, minimized... whatever you did in reaction to it:</h3> Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 12-11-2007 at 12:41 PM.. |
||||||||||||
12-16-2007, 09:07 AM | #134 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
|
12-16-2007, 11:09 AM | #135 (permalink) | ||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
I offered a simple challenge (below, in bold)....not just here at TFP, but at another, busier politics forum.....no attempt at an answer, just retorts with the same old talking points: Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 12-16-2007 at 11:15 AM.. |
||||||
12-16-2007, 03:11 PM | #136 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You are right, some arguments cannot compete alongside others. And some "arguments" are not arguments at all. Conservatives do not own a monopoly on retorting with talking points. Again, I do not speak for all "conservatives". But personally, I have often found discussions here to be framed from the outset in a way that does not promote true discussion and understanding. They often seem to be thinly veiled attack pieces aimed at one side or the other. And in the threads that are solely about an event or occurrence, I can fairly accurately predict how most of the posts will go, based simply on the name of the poster. Lack of true debate coupled with a subtle hostility to certain views and the general predictability of thread contents doesn't really make me usually feel like bothering to post anything (or even view the board). |
|||
12-16-2007, 04:16 PM | #137 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
I have to assume that there was nothing in Powell's presentation to the UN (it is irrelevant what you think of the UN....that was the opportunity for the US to build a coalition and to persuade the security council to vote for a resolution that would have made an invasion and occupation of Iraq lawful.) Powell's presentation sits displayed on the white house official website. It was supposed to be the prima facie "case" for war with Iraq, for the American people to examine, as well as the rest of the world. Did you even bother to click on the white house link? What does this mean? Quote:
Do you agree that "aggressive war"...attacking another country not in self defense due to a prior attack on your country, by the targeted country, or because of overwhelming evidence of an imminent threat to your country's national security, was condemned at Nuremberg because, in the absence of such an ominous threat or of a prior attack, war is not justifiable. The reason Bush's pre-emptive war/aggressive war doctrine is illega, a crime against humanity, is borne out by the very outcome of the invasion of Iraq. It is revealed to be unjustified, there were no WMD, and no Iraqi relationship with al-Qaeda. It is akin to a cop shooting an unarmed suspect, what is described in police work as a "bad shoot". All you have to do is point us to something in Powell's presentation that turned out to describe an actual imminent threat to US national security (or to Israel's) that justified invading and occupying Iraq, and I'll post that you have prevailed in your argument.... My experience of not finding anyone who does not accept a legitimate government role and responsibility to resdistribute wealth, if only to lessen the chances of civil unrest in response to wealth inequity, is unchanged after your post. The wealthiest ten percent in the US own 70 percent of all US assets. If their share increases to say....85 percent, do you offer any proposals to reverse their consolidation of wealth? The trend toward greater wealth inequity has progressed in that direction since the early 1970's, and you'll let it run until riots break out? That does not seem reasonable, or a practical view. |
||
12-17-2007, 04:01 AM | #138 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
|
Quote:
The reason Bush's pre-emptive war/aggressive war doctrine is illega, a crime against humanity, is borne out by the very outcome of the invasion of Iraq. It is revealed to be unjustified, there were no WMD, and no Iraqi relationship with al-Qaeda. It is akin to a cop shooting an unarmed suspect, what is described in police work as a "bad shoot". All you have to do is point us to something in Powell's presentation that turned out to describe an actual imminent threat to US national security (or to Israel's) that justified invading and occupying Iraq, and I'll post that you have prevailed in your argument....[/quote] Cite the "law" that makes Bush's invasion "illegal". And many unarmed suspects are justifiably shot (even if someone were to accept your parallel, which I don't). Your displeasure doesn't make something illegal. Violating a law makes something illegal. I don't have to do anything. The fact that Iraq was invaded is the proof. Quote:
NOT EVERYONE THINKS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH Many people think the redistribution of wealth (especially in the absence of the widespread catastrophe you seem to be prediction) is akin to a preemptive war. And there are people who think that even rioting would not warrant such actions. And the humorous thing is that I clearly said Quote:
Although I do think that the inequality in the country is a serious issue, I can still have a discussion with people who don't believe that. That is something that I think many here have a great deal of difficulty in doing. |
|||
12-17-2007, 11:54 AM | #139 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Host, as an economic matter wealth inequality increases during eras of rapid technological advancement. This has been borne out time and again. As the advances consolidate and more people adapt to them, the degree of inequality eases. If you want an explanation of why that is, read Alan Greenspan's book. He has a whole chapter explaining it. Hint: it has next to nothing to do with government policies or taxation.
And Host, you still haven't explained why you think income inequality in and of itself is a problem. What does inequality do that you object to, other than simply be unequal? We live in a country where the poor people are obese, you know. I would posit that inequality is a function of variance of human traits: just like I'll never be as good-looking as George Clooney, or as entrepreneurial as Sergey Brin, many others will never be as good as I am at what I do and won't make anywhere near as much money. They'll make up for it in other ways - there will be things they are blessed with or good at that I'm not. For example, they won't have a disabled child like I have. This focus on income inequality to the exclusion of every other kind of inequality is a form of dehumanization and a refusal to recognize that every person is different, and is good at different things. |
12-17-2007, 01:01 PM | #140 (permalink) | ||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Loquitur, Greenspan also urged homebuyers to "take advantage" of "flexible rate" and ARM mortgages, so they could "save money" paying lower monthly payments than with higher, fixed rate mortgage terms, just as the FED began to reverse it's short term interest rate cutting, circa 2004. The two decades after WWII saw huge techno innovation and the peak of union membership in the US. Inequity decreased until union membership began it's decline.... The risk of income inequity can be seen in the US "gini neighborhood", look at the neighboring countries on my list posted on this page. Gross inequity (We are at it's doorstep) serves up increased crime, civil unrest, and the likes of Cesar Chavez.... Obesity and poverty: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
12-17-2007, 01:40 PM | #141 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
you changed the subject rather than answer the question. Whether Greenspan said something about ARMs has nothing to do with whether wealth and income disparities increased during periods of rapid technological advance. They quite obviously do. That's why we had robber barons in the early part of the century and why we have internet billionaires now.
Address the issue. You consistently try to avoid that by trying to discredit sources on peripheral points. Are you interested in having a discussion or winning some imaginary points? Oh, and btw, WWII gave us some techno innovation but we also were functionally the only major economy, which acted to temper some of the distortionary effects of that technology. And in any event, the post WW2 technologies were nowhere near as disruptive or as drastic a change in a small period of time as factories, mass production, railroads, electricity or automobiles, which was the high-tech of the early part of the century. Last edited by loquitur; 12-17-2007 at 01:43 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
12-17-2007, 04:30 PM | #142 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
i said i wasnt going to speak for host and then i did even though i said different things.
it's situational. plus i had just had to wait for a bus on a very cold night for a very long time. so there were two. two situations. well, three if you count the one in which i noticed the first one. i thought of the second one later, so there were 4 situations. now there's been five. six. uh oh.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-17-2007 at 07:43 PM.. |
12-17-2007, 04:35 PM | #143 (permalink) |
Banned
|
Loquitur, do you really want to leave your point where it is? I pointed out in response to your claim that periods of significant (unprecedented?) technological innovation drive increasing wealth inequity...THAT the post WWII period in the US contradicts your claim.
It was a time of the most equitable wealth distribution since the industrial revolutuion . It was a period of unrivaled techno innovation and mass production and marketing. The transistor was invented in 1948, the Eisenhower interstate highway system begat Disneyland, Holiday Inn, the tourism industry, the supremacy of the car and bus over the rail network. TV and TV advertising came into every living room, and then it transformed from b&w into color broadcasts. Segregation ended and the space race emerged and matured. It was said that the unforseen benefits to civilian products innovation from NASA programs was amazinly huge. Frozen tv dinners and microwave ovens were developed and marketed, as was the laser and it's many uses and in 1962, touchtone phones ushered in digital communications. The new highway system drove auto sales and suburban homebuilding and shopping malls. Middleclass grew and moved from the city to the burbs. Mostly, in that first 20 years after the war, women stayed home and families enjoyed all the progress I,ve described on one income, Dad's.... Union membership was at it's peak, legitimized by 1935 New Deal legislation and the impeded by 1947 Taft Hartley. Then, in thw '70's both union membership and equitable wealth distribution began the delines they are still experiencing today. My point about Greenspan is that he was wrong about mortgages, he created and encouraged the housing valuation bubble via extreme Fed rate cuts and loosening mortgage lending policy, and he was wrong about periods of great innovation driving wealth inequity. The opposite happened in America during the period I just described. New Deal mandatied bargaining power of workers drove equitable wealth distribution and Taft Hartley broke that. |
Tags |
debate, heated |
|
|