Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 03:26:25 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 593
76  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Hillary Clinton on: November 13, 2014, 10:30:10 pm
The number of problems with the True Leftists' judgement of Clinton on this issue are legion:

1. Selective prosecution. As mentioned numerous times, there wasn't nearly as much outrage over Kerry, Edwards or Biden as there has been over Clinton, the one who, representing New York, had the most to fear from terrorism. There was also virtually no support for Bob Graham, even though he was the only one who was in the Senate and actually voted against Authorization as jfern said, ran in 2004 and would have been probably the strongest candidate of the entire field. That's somewhat understandable since Dean took up the antiwar banner, but the ease with which Graham was dropped and forgotten about was amazing. Hillary's constantly held to a bajillion times higher standard than every other Democratic politician no matter what she does.

2. The vote for Authorization wasn't a vote for war. This issue gets constantly skipped, but the fact is that debate over the war in Iraq continued all the way up until March 2003. I remember attending an anti-war protest that month. Even days before we opened fire, Bush supposedly was giving Saddam one last chance to leave the country. Clinton's position, as well as many of those who were for Authorization, was always that weapons inspectors should have been allowed to finish their job. If they had been, we now know they would never have found WMD. So Clinton was against the war, technically, and the whole premise of this isn't even true.

3. The issue I mentioned above with the fact that you have to be able to trust the President and CoC when it comes to war. This isn't even a political issue, it's basic human relations. Think of a platoon of 12 men deep inside enemy territory. How well would that platoon operate if the members didn't trust each other - particularly their leader? How could they fight the enemy if they're fighting amongst themselves? If you were an infantryman in that platoon, would you feel comfortable knowing that your platoon leader would send you into what could be an ambush because he maybe didn't like one of the other members? I know we all expect our politicians to lie about everything, but war should be an exception, and it would never become a cynical matter of course than the President will lie about war. This is why Bush's pressure on the intelligence community, what were essentially lies, was worse than Bill Clinton lying about his sex life.

Quote
People who give Clinton a hard time for supporting the Iraq War don't think the war was an "honest mistake"...if they did, why would they be attacking Clinton for supporting it!?

Well that's my whole point... the Administration deliberately tried to mislead everyone about the war and put out a ton of claims that we now know weren't true but which weren't known at the time. The blame should fall entirely on them. Members of Congress shouldn't have to filter through biased information put out by the Administration on matters of war and terrorism.
77  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Hillary Clinton on: November 13, 2014, 09:37:27 pm
It's really amazing how True Leftists will shift over to the Right Wing position on a dime when it's convenient to attack Clinton.
What are you even talking about? Considering a candidate's record on the Iraq War to be a critical issue and saying that Bush shouldn't have been trusted is the "right-wing" position?

You're shifting blame for the Iraq war from Bush and Cheney to the "incompetence of the intelligence community" and disparaging Clinton for suggesting that there was a "right wing conspiracy" to make the war happen. As if the Iraq war was an accident that we just bumbled into due to honest bureaucratic mistakes? Come on.

Quote
The moderate chair of the Senate intelligence committee, Bob Graham, started off trusting Bush, and then quickly realized that would be a very bad idea, and urged all Senators to read the full classified report, and voted nay.

Yes, Graham was right (he could have carried Florida as well) - too bad we never nominated him in 2004.

Quote
Anyways to Beet, no actually, that entire generation of Dems really ought to be retired from public life.

Warren and Sanders are from the same generation and Schweitzer isn't far behind. The problem isn't that older candidates are there, it's that the younger candidates aren't there - they're getting wiped out at the state level. In any case, younger is not necessarily better. Older candidates have had more life experiences and have earned wisdom from them - Hillary certainly has.
78  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Hillary Clinton on: November 13, 2014, 09:19:43 pm
It astounds me that anyone could defend Clinton and speak of the President's "sacred duty to be truthful" in the same breath without being overwhelmed by irony.

You don't think the leader of the country has a sacred duty to be truthful when it comes to war? This is not on the same level as not being truthful about screwing interns.

Quote
Hillary's support for the Iraq War would be more justifiable if she had not so thoroughly backpedaled on her support in 2008, when supporting that war was politically inconvenient. And when she did this, she made exactly the sort of arguments that you see in Beet's defense - which, besides giving the American intelligence community far too much credit for their competence, allege the sort of Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that has served as Clinton's go-to excuse for every misstep that she's made since the late nineties.

So you deny that there was a concerted, administration-led effort to mislead the public (including Congress) on the threat posed by Iraq, and this biased the information coming out of the U.S. government?

It's really amazing how True Leftists will shift over to the Right Wing position on a dime when it's convenient to attack Clinton.
79  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Hillary Clinton on: November 13, 2014, 08:05:50 pm
I still am perplexed at how people STILL use Iraq against her.
Iraq was a major policy decision. The vote on that war resolution demonstrates how a President Hillary Clinton will respond to the intelligence she is shown by her generals and military advisers. In 2003, she chose to go with panic over WMDs and a destructive war. That is still fair game.

However, to be fair to the former Secretary of State she has said she regrets the vote and this reflects a lot better on what her foreign policy may be as president.

No offense, but how old were you in 2002-2003? It's utter revisionist poppycock that president Bush just listened to the intelligence he was getting from the government and made an objective decision that Saddam had WMD. He decided to go to war first and then pressured the intelligence community to come up with "information" to support his political decision. However, that did not become fully clear until much later. The Downing Street memo was incendiary, but was not leaked until April 2005. Similarly, ambassador Joseph Smith's article saying Iraq had not bought yellowcake uranium from Niger did not appear until July 2003.

Hillary's sin, along with others who supported the war in both parties, was essentially to trust that the POTUS who had stood on the rubble of the WTC barely 12 months earlier was not manipulating intelligence to monger the country into a war. Congress has to be able to trust that the president is telling the truth when it comes to matters of national security. If they cannot trust him, who oversees the CIA, DoD, and State, who can they trust? No one. Then the system is fundamentally broken. Call me old fashioned, but I still think the president had a sacred duty to the Constitution to he truthful about such matters, where hundreds of thousands of troops are going into harms way. I still think that those who try to shift the blame to Hillary or other Senators here with the benefit of hindsight are implicitly letting Bush off the hook and assuming that a dishonest war presidency should be expected. I think that's a dangerous precedent.

There is a difference between Senator Clinton and those other Senators, Kerry, Biden, and Edwards, though. The difference was that more than 2,000 of her constituents had been killed in the most dramatic terror attack in world history just a year earlier. These were the people she was sworn to represent and whose interests to look after. Now a war president was claiming, with the backing of the whole edifice of the US government, that a new terror threat was being presented. Just imagine for a moment had she been wrong the other way- if she had opposed the war, (implausibly) stopped the war, and then the threat was realized and more if her constituents were killed in another terror attack. Can you even imagine the epic dereliction of duty she would have been accused of? These are serious matters which is why everyone must play their role. Intelligence was the role of the executive branch and the fault lies solely with the president who failed to carry out that role.
80  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Cuomo had 'secret pact' with Long Island Republican Senators on: November 13, 2014, 04:36:41 pm
No that I have any particular like for Cuomo, but why should we believe a report from the NY Post?
81  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Hillary Clinton on: November 13, 2014, 09:59:32 am
She voted the wrong way on the most infamous vote of the 21st century so far when the facts were there to justify voting the correct way, so definitely count me as not ready for Hillary.

I assume you were also not ready for Kerry and not ready for Biden 08 and not ready for Biden 12?
82  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: "All other things equal, having and raising children is a service to society." on: November 12, 2014, 11:11:46 pm
This is less controversial than I thought it would be? I'm pleasantly surprised..
83  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Ukraine Crisis on: November 12, 2014, 03:55:32 pm
Per the NYT, Nato has verified it.
84  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Ukraine Crisis on: November 12, 2014, 11:54:51 am
Why can't NATO ever verify this stuff itself? You would think with its satellite surveillance capabilities they would be able to either confirm or deny the Ukrainian government claims that they're being invaded. If the NATO position is, "gee, we can't tell whether Ukraine is being invaded or not" that's pretty pathetic, IMO.
85  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Paul: Unclear if Clinton can handle "rigorous physical ordeal" of 2016 campaign on: November 12, 2014, 11:51:03 am
It won't be as tiring if the party unites around her early.
86  General Politics / Political Debate / "All other things equal, having and raising children is a service to society." on: November 12, 2014, 12:33:15 am
Currently, "Having children is a human right that should not be denied by society?" is at 71% agree, 29% disagree. I think this one will be more controversial. I propose that having and raising children is a service to society. First, let me add that I myself an childless and plan to remain so for the rest of my life, so this is not a 'my lifestyle is better than yours' question for me. Secondly, I am obviously referring to a reasonable number of children (1-3), not Octomom.

My reasons are basically that, if no one had any children, society would collapse. Most obviously, social security would not be there for the retired; the last generation would not be able to retire at all and would see rapidly eroding quality of life in the last years of their lives. The nation would no longer be able to defend itself, and we would quickly be extinguished; perhaps annexed by Canada or Mexico. The Constitution would cease to have power. The flag can be folded up, and the United States can be thrown in the dust bin of history.

So if one sees that scenario as a negative, then someone needs to have children. And having, and raising children, is hard work and very expensive. My friends who have had kids no longer have time for anything else. Most of them lose their freedom to travel or go on vacation. The bags under their eyes grow larger, their physical body is not as fit as before, and gray hair appears at a more rapid rate than before. These are just some of the changes I've noticed among my friends who have had kids. The financial burden is also huge.

So therefore, since this is something that benefits society but has huge costs to the individual, I would say it's a service to society.
87  General Politics / Political Debate / Should state legislative districts been drawn by independent commissions? on: November 11, 2014, 11:11:12 pm
You obviously knew this question was going to come up. It's unethical that in 37 states, legislatures draw their own districts. That would be like having Congress draw its own districts. It's eminently corrupt.
88  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Four most significant Presidents of the 20th Century on: November 11, 2014, 10:43:43 pm
FDR (duh)
Teddy R.
Reagan
Nixon
89  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Rank your elections you could vote in from most to least favorite on: November 11, 2014, 10:40:54 pm
New ranking

2012
2008
2010
2006
2004
2002
2014
90  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Opinion of "Lincoln" (the movie) on: November 11, 2014, 03:03:58 pm
I had the opposite reaction - they seemed a little too smug about the backroom deals. Like 'har, har, har, we're showing you how it's really done.' The audience is supposed to both approve and feel intelligent. I'd rather just read Master of the Senate again.
91  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: McCain: 55-year old Loretta Lynch "a very outsanding young woman" on: November 11, 2014, 02:31:54 pm
When McCain graduated college Lynch hadn't even been born yet.
92  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Hillary Clinton on: November 11, 2014, 02:20:05 pm
I think the point is, when a male politician is "Machiavellian", it's less likely to be called out as Machiavellian because there's more cognitive dissonance when a woman does it. Politics is Machiavellian. Some people are just better at hiding it than others. Since Clinton's already perceived that way, I'd say that actually makes her less of a threat from the standpoint of political machinations.
93  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Hillary Clinton on: November 11, 2014, 02:14:58 pm
A Machiavellian

Understands that compromises must be made to be effective in the American political system.

Quote
scheming,

Thinks carefully, plans ahead, works hard, doesn't just hope things will turn out alright.

Quote
self-centred

Has self-respect, stands up for herself, knows how to enjoy things properly.
94  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley) on: November 11, 2014, 01:47:38 pm
HA. Regardless of what you think of unions, banning closed shops/right to work laws are a violation of freedom of association.
Uh, what? So you're saying that making a requirement to work somewhere be that someone must associate with a union promotes freedom of association? There is no freedom there. It leverages ones need to earn an income against union interests.

Merely setting a requirement to work is not against freedom- otherwise employers would not be able to require anything (like having a college degree, having x years of experience, no criminal history, signing non compete agreements, etc.). Of course, employers are free not to have those requirements.
95  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley) on: November 11, 2014, 01:30:41 pm
The problem is this issue is too easy to demagogue. The ads practically write themselves.. a man walks up to the factory gate to begin work, a big, menacing-looking blue collar guy with a scowl steps in front of him, holding up a union dues form. Caption: you could be forced to do x y z, etc. Most Americans these days have never been in a union and it's too easy to cast them as oppressing workers rather than the employers advocacy associations. Collective bargaining is also a very abstract concept and most people wont intuitively understand the free rider problem, or why the employers organization must be matched with organization on the part of employees to have equal bargaining power. Although I think most people intuitively understand the don't have as much bargaining power as a 1,000 employee company when it comes to their job, most academic explanation makes it seem like the union is the one bring oppressed by it, not the worker.
96  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Hillary Clinton on: November 11, 2014, 01:23:50 pm
One of the biggest FF in modern American politics.
97  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley) on: November 11, 2014, 12:37:57 pm
HA. Regardless of what you think of unions, banning closed shops/right to work laws are a violation of freedom of association.
98  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Martha Coakley on: November 11, 2014, 12:09:57 pm
I really thought her 2010 loss was a fluke generated by the harsh political environment. I guess I was wrong.
99  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Racism Powered Republican Triumph on: November 10, 2014, 07:33:08 pm
I agree with Marokai and NC Yankee... the racists padded the GOP margins, as they do in every election, but pounding against the "racist/misogynist electorate" is only going to alienate moderate white/male voters who the Dems need to be competitive with, and who want to hear about non-identity politics-related pocketbook issues that actually matter to them. Incidentally, those same issues tend also to be relevant to minorities and women.
100  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama saves net neutrality, orders broadband be classified as vital service on: November 10, 2014, 03:32:05 pm
I don't see the need for it.  We keep increasing bandwidth to keep pace with new applications.  We have 100 gb/sec optical fiber being adopted.

That's the problem. Tragedy of the Commons.

The same concept cited by Democrats when they argue that low gasoline taxes and lack of use-taxes have led to sprawl and over exploitation of real estate for roadways. It's actually low property tax and incompetent use of income tax, but that's for another time.

If we are going to invite tragedy of the commons, we have to develop a game plan for the efficient expansion and utilization of bandwidth.

Land is limited, and development encroaches on environmental perogatives. Land use debates are about the nature of capacity (how development is spaced), not the amount of capacity (unless you're talking about extreme environmentalists who want to limit human population). Expanding bandwidth does not face those problems. It's simply a question of increasing investment, which can be done without bandwidth discrimination. Back in 2007, anti-net neutrality advocates were predicting that YouTube would soon crash the Internet.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 593


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines