Obama General Discussion

[Headache in a Suitcase]

So you're against all peace treaties?

yes that is obviously what i meant. fuck peace.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

But they don't. They know you won't. I'm not talking about threats in a relatively similar weight class to the US (major nuclear nations like China and Russia) because that's where the deterrent actually does work. I'm talking about people like Iran, North Korea, or stateless organisations. They know the US will not - ever* - launch a nuclear attack unless it's part of a nuclear nukefest nukeoff with a major nukenemy.

Think it through. If it's via one of those lesser idiot states or a terrorist organisation, I can't even see the US responding in kind if a whole city and a couple of million people are lost. Not responding in kind wins not just every humanitarian argument, but every strategic argument too. Fox News and the raving mad end of the right wing would detest anything but a response in kind, but after the initial understandable fury and bloodthirst, the majority of the US would come around to seeing that too. There's just no way it would happen*. (Whispering) And other people know this too.

The deterrent doesn't exist in strategy because it doesn't actually exist in reality, so it's an easy win to just delete a paragraph or two.





* Palin Pending

save your "fox news" rhetoric for someone else. the last thing i am is a right wing hawkish "bloodthirsty" republican.

what, as if russia and china aren't potential future enemies of the united states? you honestly couldn't see a scenario in which one (or both) of these two nations came into conflict with the united states? especially in this time of dwindling resources?

 

[deep]

it's not a mistake to practice it... it's a mistake to say it.

the idea that we could use them is the best deterant we have going for us. even clinton agreed with that one.

i don't think we should actually go around nuking people... i just want our enemies to think that we might.

there are a lot of layers to this

the country was quite united after 911. some would have been fine if we used tactical nukes in Bora Bora to get a sure kill on BinLaden

there would have been controversy, but just playing a loop of the planes going into the buildings would have been enough justification for many. how could we take a chance that Obama might get away and do it again. He would have no qualms getting a nuke from a failed state and launching it. does anyone doubt that ?

 

[Bluer White]

save your "fox news" rhetoric for someone else. the last thing i am is a right wing hawkish "bloodthirsty" republican.

That's right. Don't allow yourself to be labeled in here!

But I do agree with Earnie's posts. There's nothing to worry about. It's good presidential diplomacy.

what, as if russia and china aren't potential future enemies of the united states? you honestly couldn't see a scenario in which one (or both) of these two nations came into conflict with the united states? especially in this time of dwindling resources?

I don't trust them either. But America is not that naive and I think we'll always have the threat of blowing them to hell and back with nukes. Our "friends" know that too.

 

[deep]

Well, the United States did not believe nation building would be worth it in Afgahnistan ...

While the Karzai government is far from perfect, its not clear that a better alternative(Afghan leader or political group) has emerged. Leaving Afghanistan because the US and NATO has an imperfect partner certainly will not solve the problems or the threat that is posed by a chaotic and unstable Afghanistan. Those problems would only get worse.

Afghanistan??

How will the ramp up of troops go with these developements??

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/20...kyrgyzstan-and-the-u-s-effort-in-afghanistan/

Protests topple Kyrgyzstan's president, opposition claims - CNN.com

 

[Bluer White]

While the Karzai government is far from perfect, its not clear that a better alternative(Afghan leader or political group) has emerged. Leaving Afghanistan because the US and NATO has an imperfect partner certainly will not solve the problems or the threat that is posed by a chaotic and unstable Afghanistan. Those problems would only get worse.

I see your point, thanks.

 

[BVS]

yes that is obviously what i meant. fuck peace.

My point is how is this any different from any peace treaty? You put certain things in writing and if you break that word you pay the consequences.

 

[Strongbow]

But they don't. They know you won't. I'm not talking about threats in a relatively similar weight class to the US (major nuclear nations like China and Russia) because that's where the deterrent actually does work. I'm talking about people like Iran, North Korea, or stateless organisations. They know the US will not - ever* - launch a nuclear attack unless it's part of a nuclear nukefest nukeoff with a major nukenemy.

This is not true at all. If it were, Iran would not be spending so much money on hardening its underground nuclear facilities against ground burst from nuclear weapons.

The deterent effect is why the United States has never ruled out the use of nuclear weapons before in these situations.

Think it through. If it's via one of those lesser idiot states or a terrorist organisation, I can't even see the US responding in kind if a whole city and a couple of million people are lost. Not responding in kind wins not just every humanitarian argument, but every strategic argument too. Fox News and the raving mad end of the right wing would detest anything but a response in kind, but after the initial understandable fury and bloodthirst, the majority of the US would come around to seeing that too. There's just no way it would happen*. (Whispering) And other people know this too.

Nuclear Weapons have other uses besides blowing up cities. If nuclear weapons were used against a rogue state, it would not be for flattening major cities in the country.

The deterrent doesn't exist in strategy because it doesn't actually exist in reality, so it's an easy win to just delete a paragraph or two.

But your assuming that the leaders of the state in question would come to the same conclusions as yourself about what was "realistic". The reality is that while for many it might not be a deterrent, for some it could be, which is the drawback to stating precisely when the USA would respond with such weapons.

 

[Strongbow]

Afghanistan??

How will the ramp up of troops go with these developements??

Around the Web: Kyrgyzstan and the U.S. effort in Afghanistan – Afghanistan Crossroads - CNN.com Blogs

Protests topple Kyrgyzstan's president, opposition claims - CNN.com

There are already plans in place to to deal with a situation where the airbase at Manas in Kyrgyzstan could not be used. The government there had recently decided to end NATO's use of the airbase but reversed that decision. There are other airbases available in the southern former Soviet Union for the right price.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Obama clashes with gay rights hecklers in L.A. - Yahoo! News

 

[PhilsFan]

I would hardly call that a clash.

 

[corianderstem]

Obama States the Obvious to Hecklers

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think it's just not happening fast enough for them. We have health care reform and other things and they're still waiting. He said pressure me so that's what they're doing


Gay Veterans Chain Themselves To White House Gate, Demand DADT Repeal (VIDEO)

"We were here over 30 days ago demanding that the president add repeal language into the Defense Authorization bill," said Robin McGehee, the co-founder of the organization. "He has not shown leadership to do that as of this time... [And] we don't believe that you need to be delaying the service members who are suffering under this policy any longer."

Asked whether Monday and Tuesday's protest was a harbinger of things to come, McGehhe, replied: "Absolutely. In our opinion we need equality all across the United States for all LGBT Americans. Service members are one group of people who are treated unjustly, but there are people who suffer..."

"At our national dinner he said: 'Pressure me,'" she added. "We're here to do it, That's what we're here to do."

 

[deep]

I would hardly call that a clash.

taking into account that the room was filled with people that paid a pretty penny to be inside, so they were all supposed supporters

this did get a lot of air play on local L A stations here.


I am trying to understand where he lost control of this. I think it was during the campaign, did he say he would end it in his first year?

 

[Bluer White]

taking into account that the room was filled with people that paid a pretty penny to be inside, so they were all supposed supporters

this did get a lot of air play on local L A stations here.


I am trying to understand where he lost control of this. I think it was during the campaign, did he say he would end it in his first year?

Like Guantanamo?

 

[deep]

Like Guantanamo?

yes we had a slew of the ANSWER protesters outside the event going on about that and the Iraq War,
bringing up campaign promises verses his actions while in office, some of these lefties may not show up at the polls again, the question is, how large is this group of 'true believers'?

 

[BVS]

the question is, how large is this group of 'true believers'?

How are you defining "true believer"?

Those that believe politicians can do everything they say?

Or those that believe that was going to be easy?

Or those that believe Obama can do no wrong?

Or those that believe he was born in Kenya?

 

[deep]

What I mean are all the more liberal supporters that are disappointed that Obama has not moved fast enough on closing GITMO, getting out of Iraq, truely reforming health care, ending DTDA, etc.


They say the 'true believers' (conservatives) caused Bush 1 to lose in 92 because they did not come out to the polls.
They believed he had not stayed true to threir core conservative values.

 

[Bluer White]

yes we had a slew of the ANSWER protesters outside the event going on about that and the Iraq War,
bringing up campaign promises verses his actions while in office, some of these lefties may not show up at the polls again, the question is, how large is this group of 'true believers'?

Don't know...but I bet the president's party will still hold the House and Senate after the November vote.

 

[BVS]

What I mean are all the more liberal supporters that are disappointed that Obama has not moved fast enough on closing GITMO, getting out of Iraq, truely reforming health care, ending DTDA, etc.


They say the 'true believers' (conservatives) caused Bush 1 to lose in 92 because they did not come out to the polls.
They believed he had not stayed true to threir core conservative values.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think these people are the minority. And I mean on both sides.

Maybe not the younger newer voters, but I think the majority on any side know that politics is a messy game and campaign promises aren't real promises. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm just the cynical one.

I think there are going to be very few that just stay home and let Obama continue another term if the canidate is not "conservative" enough. And vice versa. It may be how people spin it, but I don't think they are the deciding factors.

 

[AEON]

Do you ever get the feeling that leaders of both sides often meet in some back room to smoke cigars, drink old scotch, and laugh at how easy we are to distract?

 

[deep]

I agree, they are a small minority

are they 1% or less, not a lot of impact

are they 3-4%, that could turn some close elections

4-7 % has quite a bit of impact.

True believers went for Nader in 2000 and many believe they flipped the out come.

In the 435 House races, a small percent could flip quite a few seats.

I think W was pretty successful holding his 'true believers', and Obama had good support in 2008.

Bush 1 held then in 1988 against Dukakis, he lost them in 1992. Of course in 92 we had the complication of the Reform party and Perot.

 

[2861U2]

Speaking of the DADT heckling, Greg Gutfeld from Fox News had a funny piece on that today:

The Daily Gut

"I just wonder...couldn't this heckling be a precursor to violent extremism? And could this agitation toward our President, believed to be based on policy - actually be thinly veiled racism? I mean, the President actually said he agreed with this gay group. And yet they still heckled. Perhaps the members of Get Equal should look in the mirror, and ask themselves why they're so uncomfortable with a black man in the Oval Office."

 

[deep]

could be on to something

Obama is an African-American Christian, and that group is solidly against gay marriage.

 

[BVS]

Speaking of the DADT heckling, Greg Gutfeld from Fox News had a funny piece on that today:

The Daily Gut

"I just wonder...couldn't this heckling be a precursor to violent extremism? And could this agitation toward our President, believed to be based on policy - actually be thinly veiled racism? I mean, the President actually said he agreed with this gay group. And yet they still heckled. Perhaps the members of Get Equal should look in the mirror, and ask themselves why they're so uncomfortable with a black man in the Oval Office."

Some hide behind humor to avoid the real racism that IS going on in the Tea Party.

It's ashamed that some have used the term too much and too loosely, for it gives you, INDY, and the like the ability to hide behind this type of response.

I agree it's been overused, which is ashame, for now it makes it impossible to address the real racism.

If I were Glenn Beck I would say this was all some long thought out conspiracy to trick us and avoid the conversation of real racism... but I'm not Glenn Beck, I just think your side lucked out due to some blanket throwing.

 

[deep]

Does this mean Obama has the 60 votes to get Finance Regulation passed?


Grassley Joins Democrats in Approving Derivatives Bill -

 

[deep]

Do you ever get the feeling that leaders of both sides often meet in some back room to smoke cigars, drink old scotch, and laugh at how easy we are to distract?

Tip O'Neil and Reagan ?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Seriously? It must be the heat..


‘Birther’ bill heads to Senate after House approval

By Jim Small azcapitoltimes.com

Published: April 21, 2010 at 5:21 pm

Arizona would require presidential hopefuls to prove their citizenship to the state’s highest elections official if they hope to appear on ballots in the Grand Canyon State under a bill approved April 21 by the House of Representatives.

The bill, S1024, narrowly passed 31-29, receiving the minimum number of votes required for approval. It was amended to include the so-called “birther” language on April 19.

“Arizona is seen as a laughingstock around the nation,” said Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who voted against the bill. “I am ashamed that this is even a topic of discussion.”

Sinema also called it “ridiculous…offensive (and) disgusting” that Arizona lawmakers were taking up the matter.

Even the White House criticized the bill. “I can’t imagine Arizona voters think their tax dollars are well served by a legislature that is less focused on their lives than in fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories,” White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN on April 20.

But Rep. Judy Burges, a Republican from Skull Valley who sponsored the amendment and a bill with identical language, said the issue was an important one.

“This is one way to bring back integrity and transparency to the voting system,” she said. “Half of the people thinks everything is fine. The other half doesn’t…

“We are trying to solve a problem.”

Rep. Andy Biggs, a Republican from Gilbert, said the founding fathers gave discretion to each state to determine how elections are conducted. Arizona already has a set of qualifications that each presidential hopeful must meet, and this legislation merely expands that, he said.

“I don’t think there’s anything particularly unusual, other than the timing appears to be (related) to the most recent president,” Biggs said.

The bill would require national political parties to provide an affidavit stating the candidate meets the age, residency and citizenship requirements. Along with that, the candidate would be required to attach the documents needed for verification by the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.

If the secretary of state doesn’t believe a candidate meets qualifications for president, the candidate’s name could be withheld from the ballot.

Supporters of the bill said the bill was not aimed at President Barack Obama, but instead intended to defuse future debates about a presidential candidate’s qualifications. However, Obama would still be required to comply if he wants to be on the Arizona ballot in 2012 if the bill becomes law.

“If he decides to run in two years, then he should provide his information and he shouldn’t have a problem,” Burges said.

Four of the chamber’s 35 Republicans voted against the bill: Rich Crandall from Mesa, Russ Jones from Yuma, Vic Williams from Tucson and Adam Driggs from Phoenix. Crandall told Arizona Capitol Times the Federal Elections Commission already verifies the qualifications, so a state law would be redundant.

“We’re adding more and more responsibilities (for the secretary of state) with no funding – for something that somebody’s already doing,” he said.

The bill now returns to the Senate for a final vote. If approved there, it goes to Gov. Jan Brewer.

 

[INDY500]

Rep. Judy Burges, a Republican from Skull Valley

Skull Valley... I love this country.

 

[deep]

Seriously? It must be the heat..


‘Birther’ bill heads to Senate after House approval

By Jim Small azcapitoltimes.com

Published: April 21, 2010 at 5:21 pm

Arizona would require presidential hopefuls to prove their citizenship to the state’s highest elections official if they hope to appear on ballots in the Grand Canyon State under a bill approved April 21 by the House of Representatives.

The bill, S1024, narrowly passed 31-29, receiving the minimum number of votes required for approval. It was amended to include the so-called “birther” language on April 19.

Good.

Romney will have to produce his birth certificate from the Juniper Creek compound.