Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Thaeris on September 07, 2012, 09:14:32 pm
-
I'd like to start a general political thread for the US 2012 elections rather than a thread for any specific issue. Feel free to discuss ANY issue, who you're going to vote for and why, or even why you shouldn't. I'm becoming increasingly disturbed about matters, but I don't think that entails being charged with "threadrailing."
Thus, DISCUSS.
-
the biggest issue in america today is that there are too many people in it. we need to start lobbing nukes before it gets out of hand.
-
Oh you...
...Actually, according to some conspiracy theories, that's [in abstract] not too far-fetched. But it would not involve nukes, it would involve martial law and mass executions. You'd probably also be on the kill list yourself, so I doubt you'd enjoy it. :blah:
Aside from questionable asides, I'd like to pitch in for Gary Johnson - this is before he became the Libertarian candidate. His policies have not changed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRPrZxHUqsA&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLA4UdO-OPcfjIR1G_lEPbwA
-
I'd doubt they'd expend the effort to after him deep in Alaska. Besides, how many nukes will he have stockpiled by then... :drevil:
Not enough bipartisanship...
Gary Johnson makes some interesting points btw.
-
Issues of 2012? THE WORLD IS GONNA END!!!
Oh, you mean US Election issues...
-
Oh you...
...Actually, according to some conspiracy theories, that's [in abstract] not too far-fetched. But it would not involve nukes, it would involve martial law and mass executions. You'd probably also be on the kill list yourself, so I doubt you'd enjoy it. :blah:
Aside from questionable asides, I'd like to pitch in for Gary Johnson - this is before he became the Libertarian candidate. His policies have not changed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRPrZxHUqsA&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLA4UdO-OPcfjIR1G_lEPbwA
i have a quota to keep you know. if i miss one of them nuke the world statements people start questioning my insanity, and we cant have that now can we? also in the scenatio you mention id probibly be one of the guys in jackboots stompin' skullz.
-
I think I found at least a partial solution to what's perhaps America's (and many others, for that matter) biggest problem namely the lack of money. The US Government should start making video games. :)
No, seriously. America's Army was good. Not quite on the level of ArmA, but still quite good. It's a bit more casual than ArmA, but maintains just the same realistic atmosphere, which should appeal to a wider user base. I also recently played Moonbase Alpha, another free game, this time made by NASA (with cooperation with AA guys), and it was great. Check it out, since it's also free and really fun even in singleplayer (though it's definitely intended to be played in coop).
If it wasn't for the fact they don't really advertise those games and that they're free, they could've made millions selling them. I'd say, US Government shown that if there's one thing it's really good at, it's making games. Looks like they're missing a huge opportunity here.
-
If my government wants to save money, they need to not go to war with Iran, cut spending drastically on the military, and remove the abhorent secret-police-esque agencies that they've created at home (the TSA and Homeland Security). Here's a nice report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTNUueBMOS0
Adding to this, I've heard from some sources that protesting can be interpreted as a form of "terrorism." Current policies which the Democratic administration refuses to repeal, namely the Patriot Acts and the AUMF, allows the administration to target, guess what... "terrorists" on US soil. Yeah, there's a problem with that.
-
Is it worth calling it PATRIOT Act, to underscore the fact that it's a backronym and entirely unpatriotic? Or is it that patriotism is really the greatest threat to liberty? There's some quote like that but I can't remember how it goes / who said it.
i have a quota to keep you know. if i miss one of them nuke the world statements people start questioning my insanity, and we cant have that now can we?
Yeah, if it weren't for that you would have joined the army and shipped off to the "51st state" :P
-
i tried to joint the marines something like 9 years ago. i think their response was: we dont take psychos.
-
They don't? Then how do they find recruits? :) Most likely through alcohol, deception, dares and bets then.
They were smart not to put you near any nukes though. :)
EDIT: Maybe it's just good advertising (http://terminallance.com/2010/04/09/terminal-lance-28-false-advertising/).
-
They don't? Then how do they find recruits? :) Most likely through alcohol, deception, dares and bets then.
They were smart not to put you near any nukes though. :)
Well, they tend to offer stuff like free scholarships and the like, knowing that wages and benefits will bring in more recruits regardless of popular opinion. There's always someone desperate or stupid enough to take the offer if it is good enough. The constant barrage of pro-military messages on TV and the little 'Support our Troops!' thing they got going also makes a big difference.
I think I found at least a partial solution to what's perhaps America's (and many others, for that matter) biggest problem namely the lack of money. The US Government should start making video games. :)
Main problem I see with that is that they will probably find a way to make the games they produce into propaganda. Granted, if the crooks that run the US government spent time being distracted by video game development, that would mean less time for them to be doing more traditional corrupt politician stuff that would no doubt be more harmful. A certain amount of bureaucracy and gridlock within government is actually desirable - efficient governments tend to be ruthless and scary.
-
Uh, since I just enlisted, I can tell you that the vast majority of recruits are volunteers. Out of 33 people in our pre-ship training platoon, only one is there by court order in lieu of prison time. I expect that even she is an outlier, and her presence isn't indicative of a general trend.
The way enlistment works means that you can't enlist if you have alcohol problems, and you have to make sworn statements that you weren't coerced into joining in any way shape or form. That includes both from recruiters, friends, and even family.
That said, the enlistment bonuses are pretty sweet. G.I. Bill, student loan repayment, cash bonuses for enlisting. It certainly wasn't a bad thing. :P
-
honestly i just wanted to kill things.
-
The way enlistment works means that you can't enlist if you have alcohol problems, and you have to make sworn statements that you weren't coerced into joining in any way shape or form. That includes both from recruiters, friends, and even family.
Can someone say that they were coerced into joining by the constant barrage of pro-military TV shows and movies? :D
Seriously, I bet those two things account for a significant amount of recruits. People tend to start believing a certain idea or concept if it is force-fed to them through a box that emits flashing lights and sound.
Out of 33 people in our pre-ship training platoon, only one is there by court order in lieu of prison time. I expect that even she is an outlier, and her presence isn't indicative of a general trend.
Wait, wait, wha? Now we're essentially using prisoners as conscripts? If she's not getting full benefits then this could most likely be defined as a form of conscription. Even if she is getting full benefits, it's still a questionable practice.
honestly i just wanted to kill things.
I find your methods too crude and not subtle enough. Corporations can be (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto) very good at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India) this sort of thing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies)
-
The way enlistment works means that you can't enlist if you have alcohol problems, and you have to make sworn statements that you weren't coerced into joining in any way shape or form. That includes both from recruiters, friends, and even family.
So this means that this (http://www.broadside.net/2012/M120618-25.htm) old joke and most variations have lost it's basis in reality. Makes you wonder why people volunteer, and then complain about everything (even being stationed on Hawaii). Also, a required reading for every USMC boot (http://terminallance.com/2010/01/05/terminal-lance-1-how-knick-names-are-born/). And for everyone else too, it's hilarious.
honestly i just wanted to kill things.
Listing that as a motivation isn't going to help you get enlisted, that's for sure. :)
I think I found at least a partial solution to what's perhaps America's (and many others, for that matter) biggest problem namely the lack of money. The US Government should start making video games. :)
Main problem I see with that is that they will probably find a way to make the games they produce into propaganda. Granted, if the crooks that run the US government spent time being distracted by video game development, that would mean less time for them to be doing more traditional corrupt politician stuff that would no doubt be more harmful. A certain amount of bureaucracy and gridlock within government is actually desirable - efficient governments tend to be ruthless and scary.
What's wrong with a little propaganda? America's Army is a very moto (ED: marinespeak for motivational, in the ironic sense) piece of propaganda, but that doesn't stop it from being fun. I don't care what kind of message they're trying to smuggle inside a game, as long as the game is fun. The US government shown it can make very good games, so why not put it to use? I don't think that some subtle propaganda ever hurt anyone who can think for himself (and I don't care for those who can't). Just don't be too heavy handed with it, or the game won't sell. Or it will, but will send a wrong message (since people will ridicule the over the top propaganda and buy the game to laugh at it).
-
Out of 33 people in our pre-ship training platoon, only one is there by court order in lieu of prison time. I expect that even she is an outlier, and her presence isn't indicative of a general trend.
Wait, wait, wha? Now we're essentially using prisoners as conscripts? If she's not getting full benefits then this could most likely be defined as a form of conscription. Even if she is getting full benefits, it's still a questionable practice.
You misunderstand. She volunteered for army service to avoid prison time. It was this or go to prison. She was not "ordered" to join the army.
EDIT: And in case you missed it, the draft is still real. It's inactive, but it still exists.
-
What's wrong with a little propaganda? America's Army is a very moto (ED: marinespeak for motivational, in the ironic sense) piece of propaganda, but that doesn't stop it from being fun. I don't care what kind of message they're trying to smuggle inside a game, as long as the game is fun. The US government shown it can make very good games, so why not put it to use? I don't think that some subtle propaganda ever hurt anyone who can think for himself (and I don't care for those who can't). Just don't be too heavy handed with it, or the game won't sell. Or it will, but will send a wrong message (since people will ridicule the over the top propaganda and buy the game to laugh at it).
...and really, when you have Hollywood and the games industry doing all the propoganda for you, the one or two games the US government puts out is probably the least of our worries.
Anyway, my big issue is this upcoming threat of war with Iran. Big no no there, World War 3 no thanks.
-
...They should impeach the next president that declares war without Congress' consent...
-
And what about the Congress that delegates that authority to the President?
-
Uh, impeached for what? You can't impeach a president because he does something you/Congress doesn't like. And, thanks to the War Powers Resolution (from back in 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution), before somebody goes crying evil Bush government again), he doesn't have to declare war in order to deploy troops. Hell, he doesn't even have to notify Congress until two days after the troops go in. Interestingly, the bill was passed despite a presidential veto. Congress really wanted it passed back then.
Not to mention that, despite said resolution, no less than three presidents have ignored it and not faced impreachment. There's precedent already set.
-
That doesn't make it alright. I think current events make it absolutely clear why it's not alright.
-
Thaeris, I think you need to open stuff up a little bit more yourself. Telling us what you see coming would be a good start? You don't need to worry about being wrong in the end, just as long as it's all reasonable. Without that, I cannot participate into a discussion of things happening mostly inside US.
-
That doesn't make it alright. I think current events make it absolutely clear why it's not alright.
You're missing the point that with precedent already established, and with a law specifically tailored by Congress to allow the president to deploy troops without a declaration of war, there's nothing to impeach anyone on.
-
Except setting a precedent that presidents can just ignore existing law is a bad thing. If I recall correctly Nixon got into trouble over doing something like that at the Watergate Hotel.
-
I agree with Thaeris in that the president shouldn't be able to make war on his own decision in principle, but I wonder if congress would do a better job. It also allows the president to be more flexible and rapid in response, which might be crucial if there was ever a need for them?
What I really would like to see is the tax code overhauled. I also would like to see campaign reform, 1 in how long before the election campaigns can start (shorten it!), 2 less obnoxious ads(this is more me being annoyed rather than a serious thought), 3 the president winning by direct election, or if you want to keep the the electoral college out of tradition, then have the delegates be assigned based on the % of votes each canidate received rather than winner take all. so if canidate A gets 25% of the vote, then he gets 25% of the electoral votes of that state. 4 I want super pacs eliminated, and the dumb supreme court decision that allowed them reversed. overall more transparency on where the money is coming from.
-
Except setting a precedent that presidents can just ignore existing law is a bad thing. If I recall correctly Nixon got into trouble over doing something like that at the Watergate Hotel.
There are functional, emotional, and moral differences between violating basic law indisputably for the public good and law enacted primarily because people can't decide on who should and should not be able to have power.
Leaving aside whether the violations of it are right or wrong, existing law on the subject of the use of armed force by the United States is a deeply strange collection of half-measures and hedged bets more effective at hindering the creation and enacting of effective policy than at any other task. That it is perennially violated, and no one really seeks to enforce it, should not be surprising. It's really bad when it comes to interacting with the real world.
-
Deploying troops for the defense of the nation, or short-term incursions to suppress an agressor is NOT the same as going to full-scale war or invasion SANS DECLARATION. Nor should the President be permitted to bow to the UN on international matters without the consent of Congress. For that matter, the President should most definitely NOT sign UN legislation which may be construed to limit the rights and freedoms of the American people. Considering that he has done this already...
-
I'm glad you're here to tell us what the President's jobs and responsibilities are. I wonder where we'd be if you weren't?
-
I think the President's responsibilities can be pretty adequately summed up as "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". At least that's what he's supposed to do as part of the oath of office. :P
-
Deploying troops for the defense of the nation, or short-term incursions to suppress an agressor is NOT the same as going to full-scale war or invasion SANS DECLARATION. Nor should the President be permitted to bow to the UN on international matters without the consent of Congress. For that matter, the President should most definitely NOT sign UN legislation which may be construed to limit the rights and freedoms of the American people. Considering that he has done this already...
ermm what exactly did he sign that gives away rights? this is the firs tI have heard of it apart from the guy it Texas going on about the president starting a civil war and calling in UN troops. . .
EDIT: quick google turns up Arms Trade Treaty, which didn't happen, and it sounds like all they had was "I think Obama is gona do this!"
-
I just checked my information, and it does look like the administration passed on signing the UN Arms Treaty that was a hot topic in July - over a quarter of the Senate asked the admin not to, actually. Thus, I retract that last portion of that statement, as it was in error. Sorry about that...
-
Good, I was beginning to think you might be a member of the Tea Party but since you actually accepted factual information instead of shouting "Lies!" when proven wrong I guess you must be at least a bit rational.
-
The Tea Party movement is a disappointing example of subversion. The movement was brought about by concern about the Federal Government over-stepping its bounds (which it was and is indeed doing) and not adhering to the Constitution - both of those issues are very important. Corporate fascism stepped in and you got the Kochs and Sarah Palin instead. It's among the most ironic and saddening defeat to a civil activism group in recent times.
Occupy Wall Street (and other Occupy movements) got flogged by the media and then got smacked down when protesters might have been causing more observers to consider the crap involved in the bail-outs via legislation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W38EG0FZZw&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLA4UdO-OPcfjIR1G_lEPbwA). Here's H. R. 347 itself (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf).
-
Considering that Tea Party types almost exclusively appeal to the idea of the Constitution, rather than its actual text or any legitimate interpretations thereof, you should probably take their original and current concerns with a large grain of salt. The kind they need a donkey to get out of the mine.
It's rather like how some people will appeal to the idea of the Bible, rather than having made any thorough study of the text.
-
Time for a new feature we call "Mitt Romney steps in it".
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser
TL;DR:
Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.
How in the **** does anyone who is not a millionaire think that guy is in any way electable?
-
That sounds pretty objectivist of him.
-
...They should impeach the next president that declares war without Congress' consent...
The United States hasn't formally declared war since World War 2 so this doesn't seem likely to happen
What's more, the President actually has constitutional power to roll troops anywhere he likes in response to hostile action; this goes as far back as some asshole named George Washington
The historical record demonstrates that the power to initiate military hostilities, particularly in response to the threat of an armed attack, rests exclusively with the President. As the Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he United States frequently employs Armed Forces outside this country - over 200 times in our history - for the protection of American citizens or national security." United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 273 (1990). On at least 125 such occasions, the President acted without prior express authorization from Congress. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331. Such deployments, based on the President's constitutional authority alone, have occurred since the Administration of George Washington. See David P. Currie, The Constitution in Congress: Substantive Issues in the First Congress, 1789-1791, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 775, 816 (1994) ("oth Secretary [of War] Knox and [President] Washington himself seemed to think that this [Commander in Chief] authority extended to offensive operations taken in retaliation for Indian atrocities.") (quoted in Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331 n.4. Perhaps the most significant deployment without specific statutory authorization took place at the time of the Korean War, when President Truman, without prior authorization from Congress, deployed United States troops in a war that lasted for over three years and caused over 142,000 American casualties. See Bosnia Opinion, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 331-32 n.5.
This isn't to say I always think military adventurism is a great idea, but it's by no means unconstitutional.
-
That sounds pretty objectivist of him.
I really like John Scalzi's take on this: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/09/18/hey-i-dont-have-to-pay-income-tax/
-
Here are the two Most Important Issues for me this election~~~
issue number 1
Why don't we know who's going to win yet? We've known who would win by Labor Day in almost every past election. We certainly knew Bush would win in 2004 and we definitely knew Obama would win in 2008 by this time of year. Maybe we also know whether Obama or Romney will win - I haven't checked. But last I knew the election was still extremely, maybe indistinguishably, close. Which is weird, because given the Q1 economic results, Obama should be losing. Why is Obama overperforming where he should be in the polls?
issue number 2
I really want this election to offer a choice. I'd love to have a Republican party that was about as far right as the Democrats were left. I'd like to chew on some proposals for fiscal conservatism and sensible economics. But literally none of that is relevant because a) congressional Republicans have taken a bizarre, pathologically obstructive 'at all costs' stance, paralyzing a government that was intentionally built for easy paralysis, and, b) the rhetoric of the Republican party has rendered all issues of economics, defense policy, and even constitutional ethics irrelevant. Unfortunately, they've turned this election into a referendum on the humanity of women and the value of science. Which means there's no choice at all: no matter how spineless or disappointing the Democrats have been, they are the only viable choice. I hate single issue voting, but when the parties choose to distinguish themselves by an issue as fundamental as 'women are/are not human beings', it takes over everything.
-
its funny ive heard a lot of "im an obama supporter and i pay taxes" bs. well im a romney supporter (by default) and i leach off the government like a mother ****er. the government shouldnt even allow people like me to exist, and yet it does. i find that quite sad. seriously i dont even know why i vote in incumbent elections at all, if only to vote the current president out of office. we need less suckey candidates in the future.
-
We need "less sucky candidates" right now. But considering the trend of the last several elections and the fact that SCOTUS, in its infinite wisdom, made Super PACS legal, that seems rather unlikely.
-
Damnit, people! There IS a less-sucky candidate, RIGHT NOW:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/candidate-comparison
-
that guy actually
looks
pretty cool
-
he does but he doesnt stand a chance with an incumbent in office.
-
he does but he doesnt stand a chance with an incumbent in office.
The last few words of this statement are redundant.
-
Every country has a reasonable politician. Even Poland (though ours got a little bit extreme lately, but it's kind of justified). The problem is, nobody wants to elect them, because instead of pandering to anybody, they prefer to do their jobs. And people like being pandered to, especially stupid ones, which make up a majority of the population. And in democracy, the majority decides on who'll rule the country. Democracy gives too much power to stupid masses precisely because of that. Also because of that, elections are more of a manipulation contest than anything else.[/rant]
-
that guy actually
looks
pretty cool
Reading that site, I was with him until about...
The marketplace will meet our energy needs in the most economical and efficient manner possible (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/environment)
I mean, I loathe the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy, but I also loathe the short-sightedness and greed of energy companies (who only focus on oil and coal it seems like...). If Shell and Chevron, et al, start scrambling over each other like mad dogs racing to get a fusion reactor first or building LFTRs everywhere I might reconsider.
-
In a fair, free market, ideally new and emergent companies should be able to compete with larger firms. Furthermore, if the products and services they promote are superior to those provided by existing companies, then they should propel the state of the art forward, creating a better solution for everyone. Unfortunately, this requires that the legal system actually work the way it should. Considering that judges seem to simply dismiss many cases of abuse committed by the TSA, yeah, corruption in general is the real problem. But then, there are those who would tell you that corporations are people, too...
The Libertarian viewpoint on environmental issues revolves around the concept of property rights. If a company does something to damage your property, such as by means of pollution, then they must find an alternate solution or compensate you for damages done. Personally, I would advocate creating an agency similar to NASA, but with respect to the science of advancing the state of energy technology. I would like to think such an organization would do everything the EPA ought to do, while cutting out the crap it actually does.
-
Sometimes I wonder if Mitt's brain is in the middle of a messy divorce from his mouth...
Surely every presidential candidate realizes they are being watched by both sides throughout the campaign, and that comments such as that are going to hit the papers almost before he walks out the door?
-
Issues 2012, huh?
I was with my dad shopping at Harris Teeter, and I saw a sign on the customer service desk that said something to the effect of "Due to a national helium shortage, we're not giving away any 'Harry the Dragon' balloons to customers in training anymore" :(
I want a balloon :( Dammit, Republicans :mad:
No seriously, this is their fault. Energy companies used to be subsidized to extract helium from natural gas deposits, and they're not doing that anymore because some doofus was like "deregulation ftw, leave that to private industry". So now I can't have a dragon balloon. If being 23 didn't already rule that out
-
honestly i just wanted to kill things.
Best line to say if you want to avoid ever getting into military service in most countries :)
-
honestly i just wanted to kill things.
Best line to say if you want to avoid ever getting into military service in most countries :)
yes, i never made a point to say that i just wanted to kill things, but i sure as hell was thinking it.
-
Issues 2012, huh?
I was with my dad shopping at Harris Teeter, and I saw a sign on the customer service desk that said something to the effect of "Due to a national helium shortage, we're not giving away any 'Harry the Dragon' balloons to customers in training anymore" :(
I want a balloon :( Dammit, Republicans :mad:
No seriously, this is their fault. Energy companies used to be subsidized to extract helium from natural gas deposits, and they're not doing that anymore because some doofus was like "deregulation ftw, leave that to private industry". So now I can't have a dragon balloon. If being 23 didn't already rule that out
Dammit, now I want a dragon balloon, and I'm 40 in a week :(
-
I want a balloon :( Dammit, Republicans :mad:
No seriously, this is their fault. Energy companies used to be subsidized to extract helium from natural gas deposits, and they're not doing that anymore because some doofus was like "deregulation ftw, leave that to private industry". So now I can't have a dragon balloon. If being 23 didn't already rule that out
I'd argue that subsidizing them was a bad idea in the first place. If it would've been more expensive, our reserves would have been depleted less and we'd have ways to reuse it. Now all that's happened is we mined a lot of helium and let it fly. And helium is lighter than air, so it's actually *gone*: it floats into space when left free.
Now, if He was used only for balloons, that'd be alright, but there's also lots of medical equipment (MRI scanners and the likes) and other things that require liquid helium for supercooling, and AFAIK there's no decent replacement...
-
Damnit, people! There IS a less-sucky candidate, RIGHT NOW:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/candidate-comparison
Gave him $10. I'll vote for him if he's on the ballot.
-
Update: my source says it wasn't a subsidy to the energy companies, it was an operation the government conducted on its own. But the part about the Republicans ending it is still right.
Edit: @FSF: I think you misunderstood what I meant (which was apparently a misunderstanding of what I heard anyway)... I didn't mean there were subsidies to make helium cheaper, I meant the government paid companies to extract helium from their natural gas...
Either way, the helium went into a government stockpile.
Maybe I should actually look up the stuff my dad says before I try to repeat it from memory and get it wrong.
-
The Republican Party is a rather horrid thing, more so than ever. I also happen to be a conservative...
I brought up a few articles about voter suppression a while ago, as well as the obvious fraud during the nomination process, but now there's this:
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/09/libertarians_lose_again_in_fig.html
Who thought up the sore-loser law to begin with? The only reason you implement such a law is to deny the choice of the voter on behalf of the one who benefits from the law. In a similar sense, it is the exact reason third-party candidates now require 15% in the popularity poles to be included in the debates... and this is all because of Ross Perot. Those laws need to be abolished, as they only serve to facilitate existing power structures. And the powers that be aren't doing an acceptable job at all.
-
This guy highlights some of the issues I've had with the republican party as of late. I can only add that the party itself has started attacking even it's own moderates, people like myself who used to vote primarily Republican are being swept aside in a vast effort to continue to radicalize even further and I can no longer support them and haven't been able to for some time. This guy has his work cut out for him because our district is so blindly conservative and I do wish him well. Nice to see a democrat with a pair for change too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejL5JDw_GNU
-
ROFLCOPTER Moment of the Day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrIDHNqUTPM&feature=relmfu
-
Niven's Law #16: There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.
Also, sometimes I wonder if dealing with people like that lowers your own standards for supporting your own points.
-
I wonder if we've been in the process of being so over-radicalized with everything we've been told that we can no longer hold discussion about matters. This woman so blindly holds to what she believes that she cannot hold it up to the fire and test it. But before the HLP Atheist Squad descends upon this statement to derail the thread, I'd like to disturb you with matters of state. Please read this fine article about Posse Comitatus, and discuss:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
...Because... you most definately need drones to keep you safe. From yourself.
:doubt:
-
You talking about how non-federal (?) police are using surveillance drones? Are they the property of the federal government or something? Or are they military? Or what's your point?
-
Not necessarily, but the drone I think you're talking about was purchased with Federal funds coming from Homeland Security. That may be a different discussion all together.
-
Then what were you talking about when you (I presume sarcastically) said
...Because... you most definately need drones to keep you safe. From yourself.
Or was that in reference to something in one of the youtube videos I didn't bother watching?
-
Spit it out Thaeris, What's your beef with drones?
-
It removes the soul from war! :doubt:
They will keep you safe from the greatest enemy of your country, yourself.
-
Spit it out Thaeris, What's your beef with drones?
He's most likely just siding with fighter pilots on the issue. As for fighter pilots and drones... http://www.afblues.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/01092008/
-
Drowns
-
I don't know what works for America to get some money, but here in the Netherlands the terminating of financial help for third-world countries gained a good bit of support and votes. Apparently it involves several billions if not more, from which the costs of getting food to Africa is almost 1000+% or so of what grain actually costs. Also helping their agriculture lasts only several years before they do it their way again and screw it up, so time for different and more financial friendly approaches. Many in the Netherlands also support Australian immigration approaches, where if you want to live here, you must be able to earn a good bit of money and if you can't earn money you don't get in (and don't get to be a drain on the economy) but I doubt EU lets that fly.
-
Then what were you talking about when you (I presume sarcastically) said
...Because... you most definately need drones to keep you safe. From yourself.
Or was that in reference to something in one of the youtube videos I didn't bother watching?
Sorry for not getting back to this sooner. Here's an article to consider:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/usaf-drones-trail-civilian-auto-traffic-in-new-mexico/259517/
Training is important, but I feel that the implications of doing this sort of "training" is equally important, and not in a good sense. If nothing else, the government is using your funds to propagate and expand programs as these, and they offer no real benefit to you.
Also, **** drones, Z. A Cessna and an observer team in most every instance is cheaper than a military-grade drone. Your police department certainly doesn't need drones that can fire tear gas with the assistance of a fire control computer.
-
Cheaper in every way but lives risked, you mean.
-
Good grief, replace everthing with drones, then.
Last time I checked, there were a lot of people who want to be pilots, and they fly aeroplanes and helicopters just fine.
-
Cheaper in every way but lives risked, you mean.
You're not really risking your life tracking speeding drivers and other highway transgressions, especially if you're doing this from the air when they can't crash into you. Drones in combat roles work, because they're cheaper and less risky than manned fighters. Of course, they can't completely replace fighters because of EW concerns, but they work for taking pot shots at terrorists. Using UAVs for tracking road pirates seems like an overkill, since a military grade flight sim would do just fine for training UAV operators. Unlike real pilots, they don't really have much difference between flying a real and a simulated Predator.
-
Cheaper in every way but lives risked, you mean.
You're not really risking your life tracking speeding drivers and other highway transgressions, especially if you're doing this from the air when they can't crash into you. Drones in combat roles work, because they're cheaper and less risky than manned fighters. Of course, they can't completely replace fighters because of EW concerns, but they work for taking pot shots at terrorists. Using UAVs for tracking road pirates seems like an overkill, since a military grade flight sim would do just fine for training UAV operators. Unlike real pilots, they don't really have much difference between flying a real and a simulated Predator.
I was responding in general. Despite the presence of a specific example, Thaeris was pretty obviously against the idea of drone use in general, and I responded in kind.
-
I'm pretty sure that once you outfitted a Cessna with the sensors to bring it up to drone levels of capability it's not going to be cheaper anymore. It'll certainly have several times the fuel operating cost simply because it's considerably heavier, and lack the loiter time and covert nature of a drone. (Hint, this has been done in various South American countries, the drones are better.)
The article is also hilariously alarmist. So they track a car for training purposes; it's cheaper than the article's proposed alternative, and it's completely harmless since they're not targeted and they're not running a ****ing license plate or something and they're not calling the cops on you if you're speeding.
And even if they were, this wouldn't be very different from existing police helicopters, which is what makes it dumb like the privacy argument against stoplight cameras is dumb; you're out driving around in public, anyone can see your car, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy unless or until somebody tries to open the trunk or look under the seats.
-
The article is also hilariously alarmist. So they track a car for training purposes; it's cheaper than the article's proposed alternative, and it's completely harmless since they're not targeted and they're not running a ****ing license plate or something and they're not calling the cops on you if you're speeding.
They don't? Then they should. What's the point of doing this if you're not even going to stop any road pirates you find? As I mentioned, training itself can be done with a good flight sim.
I'm pretty sure that once you outfitted a Cessna with the sensors to bring it up to drone levels of capability it's not going to be cheaper anymore. It'll certainly have several times the fuel operating cost simply because it's considerably heavier, and lack the loiter time and covert nature of a drone. (Hint, this has been done in various South American countries, the drones are better.)
If we're talking traffic control, then the entire sensor suite can consist of a decent camera and a speed control radar. The latter needs a longer range than usual, but I don't think such devices would be very expensive compared to a FLIR, NV, laser designator and the sophisticated RC suite a Predator has. Also, you don't need covert nature for tracking speeding drivers, since the point is getting them to slow down.
-
Yo Thaeris, you were saying something about Libertarian environmental policies being all about "property rights" because if someone pollutes your property, you have legal recourse...
Well there's a problem with that. It means the more property you have, the more your right to not be polluted matters. Also stuff like air pollution. Also it doesn't address depletion of finite resources.
:blah:
-
There's such a thing called common sense?
Regulations and laws are not necessarily bad, and when they work, they work very well. A lot of times, however...
Ultimately what one must rely upon in any society is individuals who will do the right thing through their morals and ethics. When no one is capable of doing that, the society falls apart.
I would state this: there was a point in US history where Federalization was necessary to promote cohesion and unity within the nation. I believe we are at a point now where a level of de-Federalization is necessary. Reforms must be made to law and practice if you desire to continue to live in a free and prosperous nation.
-
Ultimately what one must rely upon in any society is individuals who will do the right thing through their morals and ethics. When no one is capable of doing that, the society falls apart.
This is a great concept, but falls apart right at the concept level because people are dicks.
-
Maybe and maybe not. I may disagree on you with matters on some points, or we may arrive at a misunderstanding. On the prior note of drone surveilance, note that I first responded to z64555 with my distaste for domestic military-grade drones, and your response was possibly more global in scale than my response to it was...
...but does our disagreement lead me to the conclusion that you're a "dick?" Hell no, in fact, I know you to be a rather upstanding person from all prior observations of your posts. "All people are awful" is the first, worst, sweeping generalization you can make.
Governmentally, the natural counter to this is a working legal system. Ours does not seem to be working well at all at this station in time. If the 11th Amendment was exercised properly, so many of the complaints I've issued in this thread would never have come to pass, because those laws would have been ruled Unconstitutional. If your legal system is broken and corrupt, the task of fighting corruption, which is the heart of the problem, becomes nearly insurmountable. But you can at least make an attempt at educated voting.
-
Here is a lengthy article on why you shouldn't vote for Obama or Romney http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/
-
Also, **** drones, Z. A Cessna and an observer team in most every instance is cheaper than a military-grade drone. Your police department certainly doesn't need drones that can fire tear gas with the assistance of a fire control computer.
It's not about unit cost it's about logistics. In order to get a Cessna or a helicopter moving you have to get everything prepped at the nearest airport, whereas with most smaller drones all you need is consent from the FAA (or equivalent) an a place big enough for the drone to takeoff and land (which, is WAY smaller than either a Cessna or helicopter).
For large areas and extended observation, Cessnas/helicopters may be a better choice, but again it takes a bit of time for them to deploy unless they're always on standby.
-
@Thaeris & z64555: why does it have to be a military-grade drone?
@General Battuta: I don't understand what this "I'm not going to vote for the lesser of two evils" attitude is supposed to accomplish. Voting for a third-party candidate won't win them the election, if anything it risks giving the lead to the "greater of two evils"... Is "sending a message" worth that?
-
@Thaeris & z64555: why does it have to be a military-grade drone?
It doesn't. Although the general consense is that "Anything made by the military is teh ****," and also the fact that many politicians (I'm referring to acquisitions boards) have no clue and/or don't want to put a lot of effort into buying commercial-grade stuff... and also the fact that there is not that many "well known" drone manufacturers and resellers just yet... because it's still a young market.
-
@General Battuta: I don't understand what this "I'm not going to vote for the lesser of two evils" attitude is supposed to accomplish. Voting for a third-party candidate won't win them the election, if anything it risks giving the lead to the "greater of two evils"... Is "sending a message" worth that?
I find the writer's argument immediately persuasive, but yeah, Nader in Florida. It's sad to vote for someone you don't really believe in, but until we get something like the alternative vote, them's the breaks.
-
a place big enough for the drone to takeoff and land (which, is WAY smaller than either a Cessna or helicopter).
Depends on the Drone, actually. A Littlebird needs much less area for takeoff than a Predator. Unless they have a launch catapult (like the Russian Phela recon drone), fixed wing UAVs still need plenty of room for takeoff. Unmanned helos, just like manned ones, will land and takeoff from any area big enough for them to stand in.
-
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Sure, there are some drones that actually need runway space. There are also drones that you can throw into a light breeze from your hand and they'll take flight.
-
The smallest drones can't really take much payload though, limiting their equipment and endurance. My point was, the logistics of big drones aren't much different from the comparable manned aircraft, and manned helos don't really need an airport to operate, just like drone helos.
-
The smallest drones can't really take much payload though, limiting their equipment and endurance. My point was, the logistics of big drones aren't much different from the comparable manned aircraft, and manned helos don't really need an airport to operate, just like drone helos.
Well if all your doing is recon, you don't really need more than 1~5Kg of payload, hence, you can use a small/medium sized drone for that purpose.
-
So here's an idea: re-elect Obama, since he's the better of the two electable candidates. Then impeach him. Also, go back in time and impeach Bush II, because what he did was just as bad if not worse.
-
An interview with Gary Johnson on C-Span:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/JohnsonL
-
Here is a lengthy article on why you shouldn't vote for Obama or Romney http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/
1. Cast third party protest vote.
2. Smug satisfaction, right up until...
3. Romney wins election and US is stuck with psychotic GOP for four years.
Great plan, that one.
-
It's cool, Obama's going to win. (i am also voting for him)
I find the argument ethically appealing on some level but tactically unacceptable.
-
So here's an idea: re-elect Obama, since he's the better of the two electable candidates. Then impeach him. Also, go back in time and impeach Bush II, because what he did was just as bad if not worse.
/me feels ignored.
Edit: holy crap, this was their plan all along! Not impeachment, but this: I remember hearing back in 2010 or such, that the Republicans' plan was to make people feel dissatisfied with the ineffectiveness of congress, and then somehow that would translate into the "anti-government" tea-party candidates getting elected...
But it seems like basically the same thing is going on with the presidential candidates... make people dislike both parties, so they vote third-party and the Republicans win.
But more importantly, impeachment!
-
It's cool, Obama's going to win. (i am also voting for him)
I find the argument ethically appealing on some level but tactically unacceptable.
If you are in a swing state, I suppose that is an ethical dilemma you are stuck with. Me, I live in Texas. It doesn't matter one iota whether I vote red, blue, or that obscene shade of turquoise they use in hospitals; Texas is going to vote red. Period. My vote isn't worth the gas I spend to get to the poling station. So, I can vote, "A plague o' both your houses!" with equal amounts of impunity and impotence.
-
My state of California is bluer than a drowning victim, so no way will voting for either Romney or Obama actually change a single vote in the Electoral College.
-
Have some ideas worth spreading. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxXy7n8CVAM&feature=player_embedded)
:)
-
Holy crap, Jill Stein was arrested...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/hofstra-debate-jill-stein-arrested-green-party_n_1971960.html
I never was much invested in the Green Party, but I have to hand it to Jill for opposing the crap that is the FEC.
-
Wow. They're really determined to keep third party candidates out. Maybe they're noticing people like Jill Stein, and to a greater extent, Gary Johnson, are gaining traction online. Maybe it won't take total economic collapse before the American people will mobilize against the corruption after all. On the other hand, the complacent and the brainwashed will still vote for Obamney and we'll just get 4 more years of the same bull****.
I voted for Johnson, and asked everyone I knew to consider doing the same. The argument that "it's a waste of a vote" or "one less vote for the lesser of two evils" completely self defeats the purpose of the vote... not only that, you're buying into exactly what a corrupt government like ours wants you to believe. Instead of buying that bs, I voted for who I think would be best for the job, and if everyone else did the same, I think the election would have surprising results. It's a shame people don't even know about guys like Gary Johnson, though unsurprising when the Commission on Presidential Debates is run by a Democrat and a Republican. Corruption abounds, it would seem.
/me puts on a helmet and awaits the meltdown.
-
I have actually put more thought into third party candidates this year than ever before (read: more than zero), but the fact is that a two party system is a game theoretic inevitability given the structure of our electoral system, and if a third party entered it'd just be a brief unstable phase before we resolved back to two one way or another.
So I dunno.
-
are gaining traction online.
The idea that this in any way represents a threat, considering many of the causes that gain traction online, is only slightly less laughable than, say, denying evolution. It also drips with self-congratulation that hasn't been particularly earned. It is not for you to confer relevance on yourself. You're relevant once you manage to accomplish something.
You want political change? Hope for a Republican failure cascade and breakup. It's the only remotely reasonable major shakeup at this time.
-
I didn't mean to be so "self congratulatory" as you put it. I was just encouraged to see Johnson being talked about in one more circle. (I see it plenty on Google+) My mistake. Don't worry, I fully expect Obamney to win and for that cascade and breakup to occur. [edit] (not necessarily limited to the Republican party) [/edit]
-
I'd say that a Republican breakup seems rather unlikely in the near future.
EDIT:
The political factions that make up the US Republicans have had no qualms about working together in the past, and the situation hasn't changed for them in any meaningful way.
-
I'd say that a Republican breakup seems rather unlikely in the near future.
We already had an attempt at it. Remember the Tea Party? At some point the competing forces that are behind the current Republican coalition, particularly the fiscal conservatives and the religious conservatives, are going to look around and realize they don't have much in common with their party members.
Frothingly optimistic, many of us saw it coming in 2008, but the Tea Party movement fizzled...and rightfully so considering how much it resisted organizing. A loss now might prove to be a more serious matter, since any outside-the-US observer would have concluded a year ago that this was the Republican Party's election to lose.
-
Holy ****, Obama's got this in the bag now. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-takes-out-romney-with-middebate-drone-attack,30055/)
-
I have actually put more thought into third party candidates this year than ever before (read: more than zero), but the fact is that a two party system is a game theoretic inevitability given the structure of our electoral system, and if a third party entered it'd just be a brief unstable phase before we resolved back to two one way or another.
So I dunno.
This.
As juicy as candidates like Stein are, you're only hurting your own cause by voting for a minor party and not a major party. Hell, the better a third party is, the worse it is for their side of the political spectrum and better it is for their opposition. (Insert rage about first-past-the-post voting system here).
-
You're hurting your case inasmuch as it ultimately matters which primary candidate wins the election. When the choice is between wrong and wrong (though there are different grades of wrong), there isn't really anything you're losing by voting independent.
It's a statement. If significantly higher numbers of people vote independent than in previous elections, that's a statistic that can't be ignored without consequence. At the very least, it's a sign that the two major parties need to step up their game and either appeal to a broader base or actually produce some results worth writing home about.
-
True, I'm outside of the US and haven't been following it that closely apart from this thread, but Romneywrong seems ever so slightly more wrong than Obamawrong. I get that it's a statement, but I know I personally wouldn't be able to make that statement at the cost of helping Romney get into power.
I suppose it's a necessary evil, though, given the state of your political system/spectrum.
-
Speaking as someone who actually lives in a bastardized version of a parliamentary democracy that seems to function as a republic more days than not, I think those of you advocating for the third party protest vote really are missing the boat here.
Canada presently has 3 major political parties - a "right"-wing coalition currently called the Conservative Party ("right" is in quotes as they're about on par with the Democrats in the US most days), the Liberal Party (fiscal right, social center), and the NDP (leftist). In the last election, the Liberals were nearly obliterated, the NDP got official opposition, and the Conservatives took a majority stake.
It hasn't always been thus. In the 1980s, the then-Conservatives (a different faction altogether) imploded and became three parties: the Conservatives, the Reform, and the Bloc Quebecois. The led to a decade of Liberal rule with the NDP in a small minority stake. When the "right" reunited under the Conservative banner again and the Bloc lost traction, it flipped. This last election was the first time the NDP took any major ground and it was all taken at the expense of the Liberals and the Bloc.
So where is Canada today? More or less the same place - politically - as we were in the 1990s. Two major parties positioned on opposite sides of the political spectrum (which is a very small spectrum in this country anyway), with tiny parties in the fringes with virtually no clout.
Don't expect party implosion or third-party votes to substantially change things. Unless your government structure includes a form or proportional representation, virtually all democracies end up with a two-party state in practice in not fact, and those who influence power behind the scenes will line up behind one, the other, or both as they always do. Who the two parties are changes very, very little.
-
You're hurting your case inasmuch as it ultimately matters which primary candidate wins the election. When the choice is between wrong and wrong (though there are different grades of wrong), there isn't really anything you're losing by voting independent.
There is always opportunity cost involved in not voting for the lesser wrong, if the act of not voting enables the bigger wrong to win.
-
However, if you don't actually feel like voting for a wrong choice, there's not really another choice to be had than voting independent.
To be blunt, I refuse to support either major party candidate. To that end, my options are to either not vote or to vote independent. Presented with that choice, it's an obvious pick.
-
yea i decided to switch over to gary jhonson. party candidates just keep spewing out party mantras, not one of them is capable of independent thought.
-
Tune in: http://live.freeandequal.org/stream.html
[edit] In case you missed it and you're interested: http://youtu.be/FEMi9-WZQqU?t=1h12m
-
I find the argument ethically appealing on some level but tactically unacceptable.
I knew you knew that. :)
As far as third parties, neither of the two big ones (Green and Libertarian) are something I particularly like. The Green Party has almost everything except their biggest dealbreaker: They are pro-life and therefore do not support women's rights to abort.
I don't agree with the Libertarian fiscal policies, and while I do think that the candidate really wants to put America back in the right direction, none of his plans will go through Congress even if he was elected.
So for me, it's back to the Democrats. Also, I firmly believe that they are the right choice.
-
Yeah, Obama will win.. so I'll keep buying silver and life goes on as usual. :p
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/oct/24/donald-trump-barack-obama-records
I found this most amusing.
-
John Scalzi has an excellent piece of trolling: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/
Note: May contain triggering stuff for rape victims. I would also hasten to add that Scalzi is very much not a rapist; just someone who disagrees with certain things american conservatives have said on the issue of women's rights.
-
John Scalzi has an excellent piece of trolling: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/
Note: May contain triggering stuff for rape victims. I would also hasten to add that Scalzi is very much not a rapist; just someone who disagrees with certain things american conservatives have said on the issue of women's rights.
Excellent piece that he should forward to every asshat who is against abortion in all circumstances and their local newspaper. The biggest issue, I think, is that most of the assholes who take this position are willfully ignorant about rape and choose to remain that way.
-
Oh cool, here is the Third-Party Debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HevHirBmwFs
*EDIT:
After watching this, I really liked Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party, but I can't vote for him in Indiana. Gary tripped up a bit in the beginning, and seemed to borrow a bit from other independent voices I really like, but he still has my vote. And Jill Stein totally won at the last question presented to the group. Moreover, pretty much any of these people would have smashed Mitt or Barak in an open debate - the FEC has to go...
...Unfortunately, many people will either (a.) not do research and look into this sort of discussion, (b.) don't care and will abstain from voting, or (c.) will opt to follow only presented materials and messages in their decision-making. I realize point c can be applied to any message from any candidate, but with the major parties, the differences are minimal at best.
-
http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs
TL;DR version: machines are changing votes from D to R, more in larger precincts, up to 10%
-
http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/breaking-retired-nsa-analyst-proves-gop-is-stealing-elections/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs
TL;DR version: machines are changing votes from D to R, more in larger precincts, up to 10%
Forgive me if I find the sourcing, particularly the YouTube clip, somewhat suspect.
-
On the one hand, I hope it's wrong, because if it's right... crap.
On the other hand, I hope it's right, because I posted it on HLP and my Facebook wall.
-
There's a good documentary about voting machine fraud that ought to be watched, here is the first part, and the rest of it is on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcrnBduJrUs
There was also a case during the Republican primaries where the Paul campaign found that the electronic machines had been rigged in favor of the Romney campaign.
-
This is definitely a thing I am worried a bit about. There was some serious talk that the 2004 election was stolen.
-
What.
-
ive always assumed both sides were fixing elections equally, and that they canceled each other out.
-
ive always assumed both sides were fixing elections equally, and that they canceled each other out.
Uh.... may the side with the better programmers, the bigger funding and stronger ties to the voting machine manufacturers win!
-
ive always assumed both sides were fixing elections equally, and that they canceled each other out.
Uh.... may the side with the better programmers, the bigger funding and stronger ties to the voting machine manufacturers win!
or the side with the mafia contacts :nervous:
-
The American Mafia is pretty profoundly ****ed up these days and can't get **** done.
(i'm probably going to get whacked now)
-
Or paid.
-
Ohio turned out great, and Nate Silver is a genius! Ohio State had people lining up for three hours even after the poll closed. We did it!
-
My largest concern is the Obama administration's rather troubling viewpoint on human resources:
Through inaction on behalf of multiple individuals under the Obama administration and the department of defense, the Benghazi Attack was allowed to happen. Embassy security was withdrawn from what was very clearly still a warzone, simply under the political guise that the war on terror was somehow 'over'. Even the simple deployment of a reactionary force would have turned a tragedy into a thwarted terrorist attack.
FEMA's response to the Hurricane Sandy disaster has been less than satisfactory. These are precisely the types of disasters that FEMA is supposed to be equipped to support. Now a winter storm is travelling toward the destroyed coastline, and countless people are without food, water, electricity, and natural gas. The administration is responsible for the success (or lack thereof) of the agencies they are in charge of.
"We can absorb another terrorist attack" -Barack Obama
The (in)actions of the Obama administration indicate that American citizens' lives are expendable.
-
I disagree with that assessment. The Benghazi attack was unpredictable and blaming it on Obama is very politically motivated with no real backing. Why blame Obama when you can blame Congress for cutting the budget? Why not blame the CIA for failing to predict where the attack will occur? Why not blame the ambassador for putting his own life in danger?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/06/whos-to-blame-for-benghazi-a-laymans-guide/
Obama's FEMA response is handled much better than Bush's (lack of) response. Obama's response is so great that even Chris Christie praised him. I'm not sure what news you've been reading, but Obama has been remarkable in handling the situation. Bush instead decided to host a fundraiser and let a subordinate mishandle the situation.
Healthcare, pulling the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan, focusing on education in not just the primary/secondary education but also in college levels show us that the Obama administration believes that humans lives are NOT expendable. That human lives are sacred and worth investing in for a better future.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-4Zj8fFz-Y&feature=g-all-u
Crazy orientals.
-
My largest concern is the Obama administration's rather troubling viewpoint on human resources:
Through inaction on behalf of multiple individuals under the Obama administration and the department of defense, the Benghazi Attack was allowed to happen. Embassy security was withdrawn from what was very clearly still a warzone, simply under the political guise that the war on terror was somehow 'over'. Even the simple deployment of a reactionary force would have turned a tragedy into a thwarted terrorist attack.
FEMA's response to the Hurricane Sandy disaster has been less than satisfactory. These are precisely the types of disasters that FEMA is supposed to be equipped to support. Now a winter storm is travelling toward the destroyed coastline, and countless people are without food, water, electricity, and natural gas. The administration is responsible for the success (or lack thereof) of the agencies they are in charge of.
"We can absorb another terrorist attack" -Barack Obama
The (in)actions of the Obama administration indicate that American citizens' lives are expendable.
Oh you.
-
Re: the "We can absorb another terrorist attack" comment.
What the **** else is he supposed to say? "We cannot absorb another terrorist attack" is not only a blatant lie, but it's also a huge public relations blunder.
So, truthfully, what is the correct thing to say in that regard?
-
Yeah, the black liberal guy can't do anything. He's so soft and powerless. But he's also from Chicago, which means he's from the mafia and knows all the tricks and cons to manipulate everything for him. However, he's so soft. But he's really not, coz I have here lotz and lotz of pages denigrating the actions the CIA has done to american citizens under his watch. Oh, and have I told you how weak he is? Apologizing for Amurica and so on? Further, you only have to look to democrat corruption on elections and their willingness to steal elections with these clear evidences I gathered from tin-foil-hat sites to see how he's not gonna stop at *nothing* to do what he wants!
Ahah, I just love the smell of self-confused conservatives in the morning.
-
i think the problem is voters in general haven't had a decent president in so long were not quite certain of the qualities we should be looking for.
btw i voted for johnson. im glad me and another 1% of us voters voted with middle fingers extended, though i was expecting a bigger **** off and die vote and fewer sheeple.
-
FEMA's response to the Hurricane Sandy disaster has been less than satisfactory. These are precisely the types of disasters that FEMA is supposed to be equipped to support. Now a winter storm is travelling toward the destroyed coastline, and countless people are without food, water, electricity, and natural gas. The administration is responsible for the success (or lack thereof) of the agencies they are in charge of.
I think the problems accossiated with disaster relief after Hurricane Sandy have less to do with the Obama administration and more with goverment policies in the long run (as evidenced with Katrina's disaster relief, which was disastrous) and the fact that Hurricane Sandy is just... well.
Big.
-
Apparently the campaign to "send Mr. Smith home from Washington" (or something along those lines) failed. Lamar Smith is still in Congress :(