pay up sukka!
Started by
beerzrkr
, Aug 10 2011 04:42 AM
43 replies to this topic
#5
-
- VibeTribe
- 11,742 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 01:00 PM
Let's look at these one by one:
Afghanistan: Obama as a candidate said he would escalate the war there. Anyone who voted for him thinking he would end it there was not paying attention. Here's an example
Iraq: Exactly on target with what was promised
Guantanamo: Dissapointing, but he started the process and then Congress ties his hands, by not allowing funds. So this is mostly on Congress. If you are unaware of that just google obama guantanamo congress: http://www.google.co...tanamo congress
Afghanistan: Obama as a candidate said he would escalate the war there. Anyone who voted for him thinking he would end it there was not paying attention. Here's an example
Iraq: Exactly on target with what was promised
Guantanamo: Dissapointing, but he started the process and then Congress ties his hands, by not allowing funds. So this is mostly on Congress. If you are unaware of that just google obama guantanamo congress: http://www.google.co...tanamo congress
#7
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,761 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 01:35 PM
True. This was his appeal to the center right on the trail. What makes it all flimsy and weak is that he ordered 30,000 more troops into the country for a "surge". Later, in order to attempt to meet is obligation of a draw down, he promises to remove those 30,000 additional troops he added a few years back by campaign 2012 time. All political. Theatrics.Let's look at these one by one:
Afghanistan: Obama as a candidate said he would escalate the war there. Anyone who voted for him thinking he would end it there was not paying attention.
No. He called an end to an occupation where 50,000 soldiers remain and god only knows how many private security contractors. That is a mask success on a failed promise.Iraq: Exactly on target with what was promised
Perhaps the president should be a little more stern and a little less of a compromiser. This very argument has been his center piece since he got in office. The blame game.Guantanamo: Dissapointing, but he started the process and then Congress ties his hands, by not allowing funds. So this is mostly on Congress. If you are unaware of that just google obama guantanamo congress: http://www.google.co....anamo congress
#11
-
- VibeTribe
- 11,742 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 02:11 PM
Hence the "because it's true" in your next post is just flat our wrong. It aint true and it aint funny, it's a straw horse.True. This was his appeal to the center right on the trail.
He's on track. They're not in combat, as promised... and there will be a huge drawdown by year's end. So it's on track.No. He called an end to an occupation where 50,000 soldiers remain and god only knows how many private security contractors. That is a mask success on a failed promise.
Perhaps he should be less of a compromiser. But that's not really all that relevant in this particular issue. Other issues? Sure.Perhaps the president should be a little more stern and a little less of a compromiser. This very argument has been his center piece since he got in office. The blame game.
#12
-
- VibeTribe
- 11,742 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 02:19 PM
<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=6BFSG00KK3KWVG48&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="541" scrolling="no" width="540"></iframe>
#14
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,761 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 02:31 PM
His inability to stand up to the republicans most certainly plays a part in why gitmo is still open. His compromising plays in here, and every where else.
As far as Iraq goes....he's missed his targeted obligation by its due date. Shifting the due date, along with the fact that there are still scurmishes and people being shot in Iraq by occupying forces means that the conflict hasn't ended.
http://www.daytondai...aq-1226113.html
...While the security situation in Iraq has improved over the past few years, attacks are still commonplace. In June alone, 14 U.S. soldiers were killed in combat, making it the bloodiest month for the U.S. military in Iraq in two years. Nearly all of them were killed in attacks by Shiite militias, like those headed by al-Sadr, who are bent on forcing out American troops and portraying themselves as driving out the "occupier."
And it IS funny. Because it is true.
As far as Iraq goes....he's missed his targeted obligation by its due date. Shifting the due date, along with the fact that there are still scurmishes and people being shot in Iraq by occupying forces means that the conflict hasn't ended.
http://www.daytondai...aq-1226113.html
...While the security situation in Iraq has improved over the past few years, attacks are still commonplace. In June alone, 14 U.S. soldiers were killed in combat, making it the bloodiest month for the U.S. military in Iraq in two years. Nearly all of them were killed in attacks by Shiite militias, like those headed by al-Sadr, who are bent on forcing out American troops and portraying themselves as driving out the "occupier."
And it IS funny. Because it is true.
#18
-
- VibeTribe
- 11,742 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 03:10 PM
Without criticising the rest of Ratigan's rant, which is easy to do, the one thing I agree is that money is the root of the evil in politics.
Ratigan goes nuts blaming the president on this. Obamahate.
The problem is the activist conservatives on the Supreme Court.
Can we all agree that the constitution should be amended to end the bizzare and wrong ruling that corporations have the rights of people and that money=speech?
Ratigan goes nuts blaming the president on this. Obamahate.
The problem is the activist conservatives on the Supreme Court.
Can we all agree that the constitution should be amended to end the bizzare and wrong ruling that corporations have the rights of people and that money=speech?
#22
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,255 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 03:21 PM
He's not blaming Obama, he's blaming the "bought congress" and saying that Obama should be honest and tell the people that they're a "bought congress."Without criticising the rest of Ratigan's rant, which is easy to do, the one thing I agree is that money is the root of the evil in politics.
Ratigan goes nuts blaming the president on this. Obamahate.
The problem is the activist conservatives on the Supreme Court.
Can we all agree that the constitution should be amended to end the bizzare and wrong ruling that corporations have the rights of people and that money=speech?
Hardly Obamahate
#23
-
- VibeTribe
- 5,999 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 03:22 PM
Ratigan goes nuts blaming the president on this. Obamahate.
If the president's name was Frank, then it would be Frankhate?
It is not an attack on Obama, it is an attack on the system, which Obama is currently in charge of and has the power to change, but he doesn't.
#25
-
- VibeTribe
- 12,815 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 03:27 PM
I'll step away for a little bit and see if we can agree on this
I'm a libetarian, and strongly in favor of free markets, and I agree...at least to the extent that corporations don't have those rights. Perhaps further.
But can you agree that our current President is complicit in the problems we're having? A good start would be to admit that having a Treasury Secretary outta Goldman Sachs is a terrible, corrupted act.
#26
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,761 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 03:36 PM
I'm a libetarian, and strongly in favor of free markets, and I agree...at least to the extent that corporations don't have those rights. Perhaps further.
But can you agree that our current President is complicit in the problems we're having? A good start would be to admit that having a Treasury Secretary outta Goldman Sachs is a terrible, corrupted act.
Admitting it is one thing, correcting it is another.
The government admits a lot of things it wouldn't have 5-10 years ago, and yet the practices persist.
#28
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,255 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 03:47 PM
7 Broken Promises in Record Time
1. Make government open and transparent.
2. Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)
4. No more secrecy.
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.
6. Youll know whats in it.
7. We will put every pork barrel project online
1. Make government open and transparent.
2. Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)
4. No more secrecy.
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.
6. Youll know whats in it.
7. We will put every pork barrel project online
#30
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,581 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 03:56 PM
Can we all agree that the constitution should be amended to end the bizzare and wrong ruling that corporations and private citizens have the rights to finance political campaigns?
fix'd
take corporate and private funding out of campaigning all together.
#31
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,761 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 04:02 PM
There is a lot wrong. I mean, we've addressed:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Gitmo
Transparency
Congress is bought
corp corruption in the white house finance
We still could move along to:
Presidential Signing Statements
Breaking international laws
Wars without approval (more broken laws)
and more!
Iraq
Afghanistan
Gitmo
Transparency
Congress is bought
corp corruption in the white house finance
We still could move along to:
Presidential Signing Statements
Breaking international laws
Wars without approval (more broken laws)
and more!
#37
-
- VibeTribe
- 11,742 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 06:54 PM
This is truly the issue I would hope we could all come together on.I'm a libetarian, and strongly in favor of free markets, and I agree...at least to the extent that corporations don't have those rights. Perhaps further.
Nah, you changed it completely. That's not fixed.fix'd
take corporate and private funding out of campaigning all together.
Though I'd be willing to talk about 100% government funding of elections, I don't think a constitutional amendment that requires it will fly. One that allows it would.
For all you others.... since this predictably moved...... I'm outa here, resume the Obamahate
But I wish you would instead focus on something we can all agree on. At least those who don't believe in a fascist state
#38
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,581 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 07:11 PM
Though I'd be willing to talk about 100% government funding of elections, I don't think a constitutional amendment that requires it will fly. One that allows it would.
Why, if it's what the people want?
As the man in the video states, Congress is bought. Why wouldn't you take measures at the highest possible leval (a Constitutional ammendment) that does the most to prevent it from happening.
Obama should have made a statement and funded his campaign with public funds. McCain was willing to do it.
#39
-
- VibeTribe
- 11,742 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 07:22 PM
Because then it will be attacked as a Constitutional amendment taking away freedom from individuals. So it's tricky.
Also it would mean every single election becomes a new constitutionally guaranteed entitlement program, and would be attacked as such.
Like I said, if the amendment gives the right to Congress to setup government only funding of elections and/or limit the amount people can contribute I think that could fly.
There are a number of proposals up there to discuss.
Also it would mean every single election becomes a new constitutionally guaranteed entitlement program, and would be attacked as such.
Like I said, if the amendment gives the right to Congress to setup government only funding of elections and/or limit the amount people can contribute I think that could fly.
There are a number of proposals up there to discuss.
#40
-
- VibeTribe
- 10,581 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 07:26 PM
It shouldn't be an 'individual's' right to buy their way into office.
If they got rid of the Congress pension, that money could be used for funding election campaigns
The system is already in place without an ammendment that allows for public only financing and limits campaign contribution. We don't need an ammendment stating what the rules are already.
If they got rid of the Congress pension, that money could be used for funding election campaigns
The system is already in place without an ammendment that allows for public only financing and limits campaign contribution. We don't need an ammendment stating what the rules are already.
#41
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,761 posts
Posted 10 August 2011 - 07:32 PM
But I wish you would instead focus on something we can all agree on. At least those who don't believe in a fascist state
i think most of us in here agree that Obama is doing a job very similar to that of the president before him. Leading us back around to the original content of this thread. Which is:
I've already pointed out the accuracies within above.
We can all agree what needs to be done to shift away from a fascist state. Which is what we are currently sliding into rather quickly.
