Apparently Grumman wants to discuss Obama, since a brief reference to his performance came up on another thread, which was intended to discuss something entirely different. In case Grumman is hesitant to start an entirely new discussion, I've saved him the trouble, by hereby opening this one. Taking off where the conversation left off...
Grumman wrote as follows:
...at any rate...
In simple terms, his dramatic movement to the right concerns me, but above all, the worsening socio-economic situations and the progressive erosion of civil liberties under his watch.
How far right do you think he's gone? Right of center? I'm sure you don't mean far right... do you?
So Obama can correct this worsening socio-economic condition--at his will? I wonder why George Bush didn't do anything about it. But George is an oil man isn't he; or so I've heard. You do understand the clown republicans and democrats play checkers and chess. Sometimes they get the two confused. And I'll bet you can't specify what erosion of civil liberties you have in mind--unless you won't mind your own business. Do you consider getting wanded at an airport an erosion of liberty? The Republicans probably don't think so.
The national deficit got higher under his watch, and the workers are asked to pay for this under his watch.''
Agreed, but, everybody pays for something under another's watch. Bill Clinton took nearly four dollars a week out of my check back in 1992 or thereabout, to balance the budget among other things.
When Obama wants to cut spending to offset his spending the Republicans stand in his way. When he says we can cut spending to the Pentagon and NASA they moan about it. And since we need more weapons to be safe from the enemies we make around the world because we constantly interfere then he's accused of not being strong enough.
He has pretty much abandoned just about every "progressive" campaign promise he made. The only reason troops are even scheduled to return from Iraq, for instance, is that the Iraqi government would not extend the granting of immunity against possible war crimes. Obama has expediently sought to cover up this foreign policy failure as some sort of an intentional strategic move towards fulfilling a campaign promise.
George Bush said the troops would be home by that specified time. Obama made good on it. The Republicans whooped and hollered, especially McCain, and said we're deserting Iraq. Now if you want to suggest Obama and Maliki conspired to deny Americans immunity just to say Obama fulfilled his pledge then go right ahead. But it lacks substance. America damned near screwed up Iraq and it's marginally better now than when we went in. The fact is Iraq had had enough of the U.S.'s intentions, plain and simple. Obama brought them home. Good for him.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
My answers...
quote:Grumman wrote as follows:
How far right do you think he's gone? Right of center? I'm sure you don't mean far right... do you?
Yes, I meant "far right".
quote: So Obama can correct this worsening socio-economic condition--at his will? I wonder why George Bush didn't do anything about it.
Yes, he can. The economic conditions are man-made, specifically successive U.S. governments. George Bush's failures should not excuse Obama's failures.
quote:And I'll bet you can't specify what erosion of civil liberties you have in mind--unless you won't mind your own business. Do you consider getting wanded at an airport an erosion of liberty? The Republicans probably don't think so.
You seem to have inexplicably forgotten your own examples which you posted only moments ago, like say the so-called Patriot Act. We've discussed others not too long ago, like assassinating U.S. citizens without due process, not to leave out military drones supposedly used to spy on, and possibly kill at some point, U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. We've also discussed attempts at curtailing internet freedom, including those supposed "copyright" infringement and "internet piracy" laws. Social networks, not leaving out google and ISPs, are now used to pry on peoples personal conversations and information. I don't make assessments based on what Republicans approve of or think of. I'm one of those "odd" people who tend to think independently and consider facts/empirical evidence when making my assessments.
quote:
The national deficit got higher under his watch, and the workers are asked to pay for this under his watch.''
Agreed
And this should count against him, in any sane performance assessment.
quote: When Obama wants to cut spending to offset his spending the Republicans stand in his way. When he says we can cut spending to the Pentagon and NASA they moan about it. And since we need more weapons to be safe from the enemies we make around the world because we constantly interfere then he's accused of not being strong enough.
Records show that Obama had actually raised spending on the military, not otherwise, and he did not get Republican pushover do this. Obama had in fact increased the number of wars, when his campaign promise was to end the wars that were already going on. What an irony, huh? He therefore owns the responsibility for the hike in military spending. NASA should not have to pay for the budget deficit that American governments have created by their reckless policies. He had decided to extend the Bush tax cuts, which itself is a money spender. He has carelessly poured money into car companies, bailing them out while thousands of workers ended up getting sacked from their jobs, and into so-called "energy" companies, only to see one failure after another.
quote:George Bush said the troops would be home by that specified time. Obama made good on it.
That's not accurate. George Bush only referred to the expiration of the deal his administration made with the Iraqi puppet government. The succeeding administration was to extend that deal via a renewal. It is was during these renegotiation efforts that Obama's administration failed to get a deal to extend U.S. presence, because the Iraqi government refused to extend immunity to U.S. troops. This was a strategic failure, i.e. a significant fiasco, not a strategic plan! You are getting too much of your information from the propaganda TV outlets which call themselves "news" organizations. You might want to start diversifying your sources.
quote:Now if you want to suggest Obama and Maliki conspired to deny Americans immunity just to say Obama fulfilled his pledge then go right ahead. But it lacks substance.
You are not listening. They could not have "conspired" together to deny American soldiers immunity, when the Iraqi government is denying this to the American government. Get it?
I'd like to see what set of facts you have, that suggests that this was not the actual reason behind the break down in the deal to extend U.S. military occupation of Iraq. Saying it "lacks substance" is just an empty rhetoric of denial.
You have a habit of denying things that even the usual propaganda TV outlets ("news" networks) have reported on, like the revelation that the Bush administration had heads up on terrorist intentions that played out on 9/11.
quote:America damned near screwed up Iraq and it's marginally better now than when we went in.
Concrete examples?
quote:The fact is Iraq had had enough of the U.S.'s intentions, plain and simple. Obama brought them home. Good for him.
Yeah, now that they've destroyed that country, it's "good for him" to move U.S. troops to new theaters or other U.S. bases. How about reparations for the Iraqis to go along with that? I'm not one of those suckers who buy into that BS about "U.S. blood being sacrificed to save or bring democracy to the Iraqis".
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''Yes, he can. The economic conditions are man-made, specifically successive U.S. governments. George Bush's failures should not excuse Obama's failures.''
Don't you recall me saying earlier (above) that this stuff is complicated and neither you nor I, nor anyone can solve it to *everyone's satisfaction*?
On civil liberties being lost:
''You seem to have inexplicably forgotten your own examples which you posted only moments ago, like say the so-called Patriot Act. We've discussed others not too long ago, like assassinating U.S. citizens without due process, not to leave out military drones supposedly used to spy on, and possibly kill at some point, U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.''
Yes we did discuss all of those didn't we--in detail I might add. So how has your life changed since we discussed them about a month or so ago with specific attention to those items you mentioned? If you are an ordinary citizen then why are you concerned about this?
''We've also discussed attempts at curtailing internet freedom, including those supposed "copyright" infringement and "internet piracy" laws''.
What curtailment would you specifically be against on the internet? I don't have a clue what I need to look at in this regard. Or is it more of a generic thiing like say if they curtail one item then others will surely follow?
On copywrite: Are you saying no one has a right to their copywrite? A radical poster on this site seems to think it okay to beat up on people with regard to piracy and infingement and by extension, it follows it should be a free for all. By the way what is a ''supposed'' copywrite infringement? I'm lost. Can you go into more detail on this?
''Social networks, not leaving out google and ISPs, are now used to pry on peoples personal conversations and information.''
Yeah I guess this would affect some people in a negative way. It may even affect me, that is, they may not like it if I don't agree with them on a critique of a movie. Then I'll be in hot water. But they won't be after me I'm sure. I'm much too small for this.
'' I'm one of those "odd" people who tend to think independently and consider facts/empirical evidence when making my assessments.''
Then you won't mind if I put that comment on my harddrive for safe keeping. It's rare that I do this (from anyone) but I'll make an exception in your case. I ain't infringing on you am I? This is the internet and it's a free for all, right.
''Records show that Obama had actually raised spending on the military, not otherwise, and he did not get Republican pushover do this.''
Obama announces Pentagon budget cuts
By Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY #post-date-updated Updated 2012-01-05 3:03 PM
President Obama announced a new military strategy on Thursday that will cut the Pentagon budget by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.
President Barack Obama discusses defense strategic guidance Thursday at the Pentagon. By Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP
Speaking from the Pentagon, Obama said the plan is "smart, strategic" and sets priorities. "I just want to say that this effort reflects the guidance I gave throughout this process," Obama said. "Yes, the tide of war is receding. But the question that this strategy answers is what kind of military will we need after the long wars of the last decade are over. And today, we're moving forward, from a position of strength."
The new military strategy includes $487 billion in cuts over the next decade. An additional $500 billion in cuts could be coming if Congress follows through on plans for deeper reductions. The announcement comes weeks after the U.S. officially ended the Iraq War and after a decade of increased defense spending in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
Obama said that the military will indeed be leaner, but the U.S. will maintain a budget that is roughly larger than the next 10 countries' military budgets combined.
"Some will no doubt say the spending reductions are too big; others will say they're too small," Obama said. "It will be easy to take issue with a particular change. But I would encourage all of us to remember what President Eisenhower once said — that 'each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.' "
That new strategy turns away from labor intensive wars, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, analysts say.
"The attitude is no more Iraqs," said Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Iraq and Afghanistan were large nation-building efforts requiring thousands of troops. The emphasis on the future will be to partner or advise foreign militaries in order to counter threats, Krepinevich said. "The Army and Marine Corps are going to take the biggest hits," Krepinevich said.[i] Both services grew in size to fight wars in afghanistan and Iraq.
[i]Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the sizes of those services would be reduced. But Special Forces troops, which can be used to train foreign militaries, will increase in size. The new strategy sees a need to counter China's growing influence in the Pacific. "We'll be strengthening our presence in the Asia Pacific, and budget reductions will not come at the expense of this critical region," Obama said.
Contributing: Jim Michaels
'' Obama had in fact increased the number of wars, when his campaign promise was to end the wars that were already going on. What an irony, huh?''
Correction: no new wars, just meddling. Now it's just Afghanistan. That's it.
''NASA should not have to pay for the budget deficit that American governments have created by their reckless policies.''
Actually I'm a bit sympathetic on this because I believe it means something. But... what value is to be had to look under rocks on Mars for microbes when they ought to get their asses down in the plains of Cydonia to tell them all they need to know. Yet this wouldn't work because why speed up answers and terminate the money that has been funded long term, i.e., future exploration.
''He had decided to extend the Bush tax cuts, which itself is a money spender. He has carelessly poured money into car companies, bailing them out while thousands of workers ended up getting sacked from their jobs, and into so-called "energy" companies, only to see one failure after another.''
I agree he shouldn't have extended the Bush era taxcuts. But he compromised. Democrats aren't the only ones living in this country. Tough to know this ain't it.
And carelessly pouring money into car companies? Really? And didn't you think some employees would suffer because of the loans with conditions for approval? You should be reminded the automobile manufacturing sector is a huge portion of the American economy according to a lot of economic experts. Business as usual when the loans were given could not have continued.
On the alternative energy I only read about the Solyndra bankruptcy. Who else is there on such a huge scale as Solyndra?
''That's not accurate. George Bush only referred to the expiration of the deal his administration made with the Iraqi puppet government. The succeeding administration was to extend that deal via a renewal. It is was during these renegotiation efforts that Obama's administration failed to get a deal to extend U.S. presence, because the Iraqi government refused to extend immunity to U.S. troops.''
George Bush had the expiration date. The ''deal'' after Obama was in office only came to be an issue when the American Generals didn't feel Iraq security forces could hold their own and the closing date was creeping closer. The Iraqi people and Muqtadr al Sadr's aggravation with Maliki at any deal to keep troops in Iraq after the deadline prompted Maliki to deny the deal concerning immunity. He may have had Iran behind him but it doesn't matter. This was hardly a defeat of any kind for Obama and any attempt to make sense of some deal carries no weight at this point in time. Obama seized on the opportunity to get out of haggling with the warmongerers and said that's it. And how you mistook my ''raising of the eyebows'' comment as an actual conspiracy between Obama and Maliki's government is beyond me. That comment was directed at you not, not Obama and Maliki.
T '''... like the revelation that the Bush administration had heads up on terrorist intentions that played on 9/11.''
...so George and dickhead Cheney knew it was coming right?
''I'm not one of those suckers who buy into that BS about "U.S. blood being sacrificed to save or bring democracy to the Iraqis".''
Great comment. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Don't you recall me saying earlier (above) that this stuff is complicated and neither you nor I, nor anyone can solve it to *everyone's satisfaction*?
I said you were wrong, and corrected you accordingly. Problem is, you don't bother reading what you reply to.
quote:
''We've also discussed attempts at curtailing internet freedom, including those supposed "copyright" infringement and "internet piracy" laws''.
What curtailment would you specifically be against on the internet? I don't have a clue what I need to look at in this regard.
quote:Then you won't mind if I put that comment on my harddrive for safe keeping. It's rare that I do this (from anyone) but I'll make an exception in your case. I ain't infringing on you am I? This is the internet and it's a free for all, right.
I don't care what you do with my words, as long as you don't twist them.
quote:Obama announces Pentagon budget cuts
By Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY #post-date-updated Updated 2012-01-05 3:03 PM
President Obama announced a new military strategy on Thursday that will cut the Pentagon budget by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.....
As usual, you are not listening to a word being said. I'm talking about what he has already done, and you are citing stuff about what he plans to do in the future...
Obama’s Budget
According to government figures, military spending under Obama is higher than it was under former President George W. Bush. Total Defense Department budget authority for non-war and war spending increased 3.6 percent from fiscal year 2009 to 2010, according to Pentagon budget data. Obama requested $708 billion in budget authority for war and non-war spending in fiscal 2011, an increase of 2.5 percent. Obama’s fiscal 2012 request was to keep core Pentagon spending about level, while the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq decreased. - Courtesy businessweek
Pentagon budgets over the last six years, with the red columns showing defense spending under Bush, and the blue columns showing defense spending under Obama - Courtesy Washington Monthly:
quote:Correction: no new wars, just meddling. Now it's just Afghanistan. That's it.
A correction is something grounded on fact. You cannot "correct" something with a fantasy. The Libyan war did not exist, when he got into office! He escalated the Afghanistan war, and continued the Iraq conflict from where the preceding administration left. They are already thinking about going into Syria and starting sh*t with Iran. He also violated Pakistan's sovereignty, which caused tensions between Pakistan and the U.S. Drone assassinations and destruction had increased dramatically under Obama. These are all augmentations of conflict, not reduction of conflict.
quote:And carelessly pouring money into car companies? Really? And didn't you think some employees would suffer because of the loans with conditions for approval? You should be reminded the automobile manufacturing sector is a huge portion of the American economy according to a lot of economic experts. Business as usual when the loans were given could not have continued.
Missing the point, again! He bailed out the auto companies with taxpayer money, but apparently taxpayers were/are not worthy of the same treatment, i.e. bailout with taxpayer money. Additionally, the bailout called for "restructuring" of the auto companies, which is a code word for cutting cost, essentially by sacking workers, and that's exactly what the auto companies did. The majority of these auto workers did not get their jobs back! This means that the bailout of car companies actually contributed to unemployment. The lucky few who did manage to escape mass layoffs, had to eventual settle for marked paycheck and benefit cuts. Furthermore, taxpayer bailout money won't be completely repaid to the taxpayers!
quote:prompted Maliki to deny the deal concerning immunity. He may have had Iran behind him but it doesn't matter. This was hardly a defeat of any kind for Obama and any attempt to make sense of some deal carries no weight at this point in time.
Thanks for coming to terms with the reason behind the breakdown of the negotiations between Obama's administration and the Iraq government, after initially denying it. It was a defeat or fiasco, because Washington's real intention was to extend the occupation of Iraq, not withdraw! The withdrawal has understandably been seen by a segment of politicians as ultimately a victory for the Iranians, who have even managed to draw friendship from the Iraqi Shiite leadership of the government, when it was supposed to serve as a puppet for Washington.
quote:And how you mistook my ''raising of the eyebows'' comment as an actual conspiracy between Obama and Maliki's government is beyond me. That comment was directed at you not, not Obama and Maliki.
It's beyond me how you don't understand your own writing:
"Now if you want to suggest Obama and Maliki conspired to deny Americans immunity just to say Obama fulfilled his pledge then go right ahead."
You introduced the word "conspiracy" into this discussion. Don't blame others for your own fvckups; don't be like the Washington politicians, who blame everyone else for their fvckups but themselves.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''As usual, you are not listening to a word being said. I'm talking about what he has already done, and you are citing stuff about what he plans to do in the future...''
Obama’s Budget
According to government figures, military spending under Obama is higher than it was under former President George W. Bush. Total Defense Department budget authority for non-war and war spending increased 3.6 percent from fiscal year 2009 to 2010, according to Pentagon budget data. Obama requested $708 billion in budget authority for war and non-war spending in fiscal 2011, an increase of 2.5 percent. Obama’s fiscal 2012 request was to keep core Pentagon spending about level, while the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq decreased. - Courtesy businessweek
The Explorer, there is a war going on in Afghanistan. Why wouldn't he spend more dollars to fund it and other operations around the world given prevailing circumstances? You seem to be saying stop everything in its tracks and do nothing from this point on. Don't make me call you naive at your middle age when you should know better.
'A correction is something grounded on fact. You cannot "correct" something with a fantasy. The Libyan war did not exist, when he got into office!''
Are you saying Obama put the resistance fighters in position to *start* this rebellion? I say the meddling started afterwards. What say you now?
''He escalated the Afghanistan war, and continued the Iraq conflict from where the preceding administration left.''
Yes, he escalated in Afghanistan because he undoubtedly listened to the Generals and the CIA thugs and decided more troops would do the trick. All it accomplished was a temporary fix. I believe Obama knew this but had to give some people in government the dubious benefit of doubt. The Explorer there ain't no mystery why he did that.
Of course he continued the war after George left. Do you honestly think in your now manifest naivete that he could just say that's it, we're going home at 4:30 p.m. eastern time--today?
They are already thinking about going into Syria and starting sh*t with Iran.''
''Going into Syria''? With what? Troops? I read suggestions to the effect they may give the opposition arms. I call this meddling. What do you call it. An invasion? And Israel may do what the U.S. is reluctant to do concerning Iran. Or maybe the U.S. won't be so reluctant after all: they'll simply tell Israel to leave me out of this stuff. But that won't work either because they're both in too deep with each other.
''He also violated Pakistan's sovereignty, which caused tensions between Pakistan and the U.S. Drone assassinations and destruction had increased dramatically under Obama. These are all augmentations of conflict, not reduction of conflict.''
Did you honestly think the U.S. would give Pakistan some sense of diplomacy when Osama was hiding in plain sight? For several years? And the U.S. has been after this guy for 10 years? And the U.S. has been giving Pakistan hundreds of millions of dollars a year in aid? And you still think sovereignty carries weight with someone who can finally terminate the opposition to some degree, with or without Pakistan's say so?
''Missing the point, again! He bailed out the auto companies with taxpayer money, but apparently taxpayers were/are not worthy of the same treatment, i.e. bailout with taxpayer money. Additionally, the bailout called for "restructuring" of the auto companies, which is a code word for cutting cost, essentially by sacking workers, and that's exactly what the auto companies did. The majority of these auto workers did not get their jobs back! This means that the bailout of car companies actually contributed to unemployment. The lucky few who did manage to escape mass layoffs, had to eventual settle for marked paycheck and benefit cuts. Furthermore, taxpayer bailout money won't be completely repaid to the taxpayers!''
The autoworkers who weren't released through restructuring kept their jobs--painful for the ones who didn't. So how would the government bailout the workers who didn't make the cut? Give them $50,000 a year? Right now? For how long?
Look, restructuring is nothing new. Twenty years ago the defense plant I worked in for many years underwent the process. Management said they could not continue business as usual. Those in lower and unskilled classifications were terminated. Me and many others were told since we know how to do the lower paying jobs and they don't have the skills to perform mine/ours in the higher paying classes because the U.S. Navy required certification and licenses to perform their work, then the obvious conclusion was termination for the workers affected. Sad for those affected.
The Explorer:
''Thanks for coming to terms with the reason behind the breakdown of the negotiations between Obama's administration and the Iraq government, after initially denying it. It was a defeat or fiasco, because Washington's real intention was to extend the occupation of Iraq, not withdraw!''
Not so fast Explorer. Don't mangle your understanding any further when you say I'm coming to terms after denial. Are you saying, without proof to back yourself up, that if the U.S. had immunity Obama would have said alright everyone we're not leaving after all because we have a fistful of immunity in our hands. You can't be serious about this position Explorer.
''The withdrawal has understandably been seen by a segment of politicians as ultimately a victory for the Iranians, who have even managed to draw friendship from the Iraqi Shiite leadership of the government, when it was supposed to serve as a puppet for Washington.''
And that segment of politicians you refer to wouldn't be Republicans would they? You sound as though you have closet sympathy for them when you say ''understandably.'' Are you now telling me you're sitting on the fence in your position and forgot your antagonism toward the government?
I said :
''And how you mistook my ''raising of the eyebows'' comment as an actual conspiracy between Obama and Maliki's government is beyond me. That comment was directed at you not, not Obama and Maliki.''
Explorer retorts with:
''It's beyond me how you don't understand your own writing''
Me, earlier:
"Now if you want to suggest Obama and Maliki conspired to deny Americans immunity just to say Obama fulfilled his pledge then go right ahead."
Now Explorer: ''You introduced the word "conspiracy" into this discussion. Don't blame others for your own fvckups; don't be like the Washington politicians, who blame everyone else for their fvckups but themselves.''
Explorer, this is what I said: "Now if you want to suggest Obama and Maliki conspired to deny Americans immunity just to say Obama fulfilled his pledge then go right ahead."
Explorer, this is what I said: "Now if you want to suggest Obama and Maliki conspired to deny Americans immunity just to say Obama fulfilled his pledge then go right ahead."
Yes you're seeing straight, I said it twice for you. Now go right ahead and mangle it further. I understand my man.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
The Explorer, there is a war going on in Afghanistan. Why wouldn't he spend more dollars to fund it and other operations around the world given prevailing circumstances? You seem to be saying stop everything in its tracks and do nothing from this point on.
You keep changing the goal posts. You know full well, I was responding to your objections to the fact that Obama has dramatically raised military spending when he got into office. Now, you pull out this red herring about "being in the middle of a war, which would require funding". Why don't you ask Obama those questions you are asking me? He is the one who made "ending the wars" rather than escalating them and continuing them, the focal point of his campaign. You are trying to deflect attention away from the thrashing I've just given to you about your objection.
quote: Don't make me call you naive at your middle age when you should know better.
How the heck do you know how old I am? Have I ever told you how old I am; have you ever met me in person?
If your answers to these are all "no", then you have just provided another example of how lying is a regular exercise on your end. You cannot be trusted when you are notorious for being a liar.
quote:Of course he continued the war after George left. Do you honestly think in your now manifest naivete that he could just say that's it, we're going home at 4:30 p.m. eastern time--today?
Yes, I'm rationale enough to take note that he could have put an immediate end to the war, if he so chose. He is supposed to be the "commander in chief", is he not?
However, I was not "naive" to think that he would actually make good on his own campaign promise.
"Naivete" is on your end, for getting bamboozled into believing that his campaign promises really meant something other than opportunism to get elected.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:They are already thinking about going into Syria and starting sh*t with Iran.''
''Going into Syria''? With what? Troops? I read suggestions to the effect they may give the opposition arms.
Hint: How did they get into war in Libya?
quote: I call this meddling. What do you call it. An invasion?
I call it like it is: blatant aggression! And yes, it will be counted as another "war" under his belt, if Obama gives the green light to strike Syrian targets.
quote: Look, restructuring is nothing new. Twenty years ago the defense plant I worked in for many years underwent the process.
Saying that a bad behavior isn't something new is no excuse for continuing to do it!
quote:Not so fast Explorer. Don't mangle your understanding any further when you say I'm coming to terms after denial. Are you saying, without proof to back yourself up, that if the U.S. had immunity Obama would have said alright everyone we're not leaving after all because we have a fistful of immunity in our hands. You can't be serious about this position Explorer.
LOL, this is absurd. What were they negotiating about in the first place; hello, anybody in? Giving immunity so that the U.S. can *extend* its occupation. Otherwise, they would not have required immunity in the first place. Grumman, start using your head even a little bit. This is getting crazy.
quote:And that segment of politicians you refer to wouldn't be Republicans would they?
Both major parties, but mostly Republicans.
quote:You sound as though you have closet sympathy for them when you say ''understandably.'' Are you now telling me you're sitting on the fence in your position and forgot your antagonism toward the government?
Saying that I understand why they say what they say, doesn't mean that I sympathize with the speakers in question. I can for instance say, I understand the motive behind a murderer's action, but that doesn't mean I'm endorsing the murderer or condoning his deed. What planet are you on? And don't say earth, because it doesn't sound like it.
quote:Explorer, this is what I said: "Now if you want to suggest Obama and Maliki conspired to deny Americans immunity just to say Obama fulfilled his pledge then go right ahead."
Yes you're seeing straight, I said it twice for you. Now go right ahead and mangle it further. I understand my man.
Quit the circular bickering. You made that claim, and I corrected you, by saying that you should not have come to that idea, because there was nothing in my comment to prompt you into getting that idea in the first place. I told you that the "Iraqi government was denying the U.S. government", and so, the question you should be asking, is how you managed to turn that to mean that I'm advocating some sort of joint U.S-Iraqi government "conspiracy" to "deny U.S. soldiers immunity". My answer to you on this issue was right on the mark; you'd have to be nuts to think that it constitutes "mangling" your words.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''You keep changing the goal posts. You know full well, I was responding to your objections to the fact that Obama has dramatically raised military spending when he got into office.''
Your aggravation is duly recognized. I speed read that particular point.
''How the heck do you know how old I am? Have I ever told you how old I am; have you ever met me in person?
''If your answers to these are all "no", then you have just provided another example of how lying is a regular exercise on your end. You cannot be trusted when you are notorious for being a liar.''
I don't; no you haven't; no. In that order. Since you recognized those three things to be factual why are you asking me even though I said you're middle age. I have no way of knowing your age. A not-so--careful reading would have revealed this to you.
''However, I was not "naive" to think that he would actually make good on his own campaign promise.''
So you do admit, him being Commander in Chief and can terminate as he wishes, as you said, yet he didn't do it, which means, just as I've been saying, other things are involved. Things that are beyond you, me and everyone else. Now do you recall this attitude from me?
''"Naivete" is on your end, for getting bamboozled into believing that his campaign promises really meant something other than opportunism to get elected.''
Let me explain my position too you--again. This make at least three times over the past few months.
You should remember as many times as we've talked that the only reason I voted for Obama had nothing whatsoever to do with his promises. I voted for him because I told you and everyone here I felt he couldn't screw it up any worse than the rest. But more importantly he's a Black man. I still stand by this.
Now, did you vote for Obama--if you did then why? But you can wiggle out of this confrontation on Obama by saying that your personal business has nothing to do with me. In this you will be right. However if you do use this tact then you probably did vote for him. This means you have been dazzled by a politician including my man Obama. This also means you aren't as intelligent as you think you are because you have been blinded by BS and didn't know how to recognize it, in your present age figure, into accepting unrealistic expectations from anyone. But rest assured you aren't alone in this regard: others fell ''victim'' right along with you. So, despite your protestations to the contrary that you weren't bamboozled, you were in fact. There is no other explanation. Your incessant whining gives testimony to this. You're in this camp and can't figure out why *you*, not me, have been had to the degree it prompts you to continue on your way in denying what you should have known all along: the humanity of the man. You are still naive and will continue to be trapped by your own demons for being this way. This explains your antagonism toward the President. But all the above asumes you do live in the U.S. And this also assumes you voted for Obama.
If you didn't vote for Obama and you do live in America then your antagonism and your bewilderment, and your now obvious propensity to be dazzled by a politician's bullshit can only be alleviated by deserting this system and moving to an autocratic society, wherever that might be. And with your seeming education you shouldn't have any trouble getting a position that speaks to it. But that may not work either because you won't know when to shut up. That autocratic society will see to it that you get in hot water. So it's best you stay where you are now and continue yapping and wandering around on the internet about your displeasure with a man who you may have voted for and now, in your naivete, can't understand why things haven't turned out the way you, and others, expected, despite you saying above you didn't really believe he would do it.
Now all you need do is wait for a Republican candidate in November and cast your secret ballot to get rid of Obama--so your whining can continue in earnest.
Before I forget let me tell you again, I will vote for Obama.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''I call it like it is: blatant aggression!''
You shucked and jived your way out of the question I asked. Did Obama set the rebels up in this position from the start?
On Syria:
''And yes, it will be counted as another "war" under his belt, if Obama gives the green light to strike Syrian targets.''
Thanks for admitting you have nothing factual for yourself on this.
Restructuring:
''Saying that a bad behavior isn't something new is no excuse for continuing to do it!''
Can you prove from a business standpoint when restructuring is bad behavior and not a legitimate way to make money count from their business platform. I do however agree restructuring is bad for all workers.
Understanding motives:
'' I can for instance say, I understand the motive behind a murderer's action, but that doesn't mean I'm endorsing the murderer or condoning his deed. What planet are you on? And don't say earth, because it doesn't sound like it.''
Didn't you intend to say you can understand a motive from a self defense position as opposed to Murder? c'MOWN man, say it right.
Just so you'll understand this better, if you see two men talking on a street corner and one shoots and kills the other, what motive can you establish for the murderer so that you can understand it, but necessarily agree with? You'd better read this comment again before you take off into unknown territory.
On immunity ... again:
''LOL, this is absurd. What were they negotiating about in the first place; hello, anybody in? Giving immunity so that the U.S. can *extend* its occupation. Otherwise, they would not have required immunity in the first place. Grumman, start using your head even a little bit. This is getting crazy.''
For the last time Explorer leave immunity out of this. The U.S. would not have stayed even if they had immunity. Some Embassy personel and a few guards were mentioned about a year ago to protect what's left wwhen the date came as fact. There is nothing left for you to prop up in your argument. Obama brought the troops home. Toss your immunity argument in the circular file where it belongs.
Still trying to pull a Lazarus on his immunity argument:
Quit the circular bickering. You made that claim, and I corrected you, by saying that you should not have come to that idea, because there was nothing in my comment to prompt you into getting that idea in the first place. I told you that the "Iraqi government was denying the U.S. government", and so, the question you should be asking, is how you managed to turn that to mean that I'm advocating some sort of joint U.S-Iraqi government "conspiracy" to "deny U.S. soldiers immunity". My answer to you on this issue was right on the mark; you'd have to be nuts to think that it constitutes "mangling" your words.''
There was no *claim* made Explorer. You still don't grasp the sarcasm; right up to this very moment.
The word immunity from my position had sarcasm plastered all over it from the very beginning. Now you made me morph it into something else: Sarchasm: this means the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the one who didn't get it. Since you didn't get it from the beginning this explains your dogged determination to make sense out of something you didn't undertsand. You got in too deep and floundered, as usual.
By the way an article in the paper today said drones are coming to some neighborhoods; something you brought up a few weeks ago. However there was no mention of killer drones being used. Actually I was bit disappointed about this because I figured if it said ''killer'' then this would have helped your position. It is a civilian version to be used by police in some cities and on the southern border areas. And ... gasp... some will be used by Real Estate agents to show their customers an aerial view of the property they are about to purchase; something they would have to do in real time if this type of drone wasn't used. But rest assured, for your position the Real Estate drones will probably have a missile attached to it's underside to zap the buyer if they suddenly didn't want to purchase the property. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
''How the heck do you know how old I am? Have I ever told you how old I am; have you ever met me in person?
''If your answers to these are all "no", then you have just provided another example of how lying is a regular exercise on your end. You cannot be trusted when you are notorious for being a liar.''
I don't; no you haven't; no. In that order. Since you recognized those three things to be factual
I didn't; I queried about your primary sources for making that unsubstantiated emotional presumption of my person. Following a lie with more lies only reinforces my point, about you openly making it clear to anyone with half a wit, that you cannot be trusted as a liar.
quote:I have no way of knowing your age. A not-so--careful reading would have revealed this to you.
If you don't know my age, nor ever met me in person, as you now admit, then why did you comment on my age. Is that not irresponsible of you?
What would reveal to me that this is something other than what it is; commentary on my age, as though you know who I am?...
Don't make me call you naive at your middle age when you should know better. - Grumman
What here will make anyone understand this comment to mean anything else than commentary on my age, implying that you know my age?
As for other commentary, however fun it may be in clowning around with you, as though you have not a slightest clue about where I'm coming from, I have enough faith in the ability of reasonable readers to take home my points; they were made simple and clear enough to stand on their own.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
My quote but explorer's highlight:
I don't; no you haven't; no. In that order. Sinceyou recognized those three things to be factual
The Explorer shows his ignorance here:
''I didn't; I queried about your primary sources for making that unsubstantiated emotional presumption of my person.''
now me:
Don't make me call you naive at your middle age whenyou should know better.
...and me...
I have no way of knowing your age. A not-so--careful reading would have revealed this to you.
Now The Explorer still thinks he's found an *absolute* statement from me when in fact it was nothing more than a comment, probably to be ignored, yet wasn't, all because Explorer was losing his position in the debate, and could come up with nothing but a puzzling reply to reassemble his shambles of an argument elsewhere on this topic. You 'may' recall another poster telling me I was a specific age when I wasn't... even after I told him my specific age in a very recent comment. I chided him in good nature on that specific and let it go at that. Yet here you are dragging out your empty appeal to an audience who probably don't give a f..k anyway about what we say and now you want help from them in restoring some sense of acknowledgement in your deceptively attractive replies (also known as specious) about ''I don't know your age.''
In light of the absence of a categorical statement from me stating I do know your age, which undeniably takes it out of the specific category when you told me I didn't know, how then can you reconcile this: ''I'm one of those ''odd'' people who tend to think independently and consider facts/empirical evidence making my assessments.'' with your reckless position on this age thing?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman:
Now The Explorer still thinks he's found an *absolute* statement from me when in fact it was nothing more than a comment, probably to be ignored, yet wasn't, all because Explorer was losing his position in the debate,
You do seem to have trouble separating fact from fiction, don't you, because you've been lying [to yourself] so much that the stark difference between the two have become blurred.
It was a comment, but it is *not a fact* that there's nothing more to it. You made a definite claim about my age, when there was no grounds for it. It's a lie, and quite simply, you were called on it. If you don't want to shed tears on being called out, then stop the misdeeds that get you into trouble. It's not a hard concept.
quote:and could come up with nothing but a puzzling reply to reassemble his shambles of an argument elsewhere on this topic.
What's puzzling, is why you felt the need to lie about something as unnecessary as my age. What do you gain from a lie like that. If you are willing to lie about things of that nature, what then does that say about your state of mind? One thing for sure that it does say, is that you are untrustworthy for just about anything you say.
quote:You 'may' recall another poster telling me I was a specific age when I wasn't... even after I told him my specific age in a very recent comment. I chided him in good nature on that specific and let it go at that.
So, then this was supposed to be your sick idea of a revenge, i.e. on me, for some shyt that went down between you and some other poster. Why not take it up with him instead of making a total fool of yourself here? Gutless, maybe?
quote:Yet here you are dragging out your empty appeal to an audience who probably don't give a f..k anyway about what we say and now you want help from them in restoring some sense of acknowledgement in your deceptively attractive replies (also known as specious) about ''I don't know your age.''
Showing that you are a chronic liar is obviously relevant to the discussion. You may not think that it is important, in which case you ought to speak just for yourself. Don't project your emotional opinion onto an audience you don't know, or are you here to convince them that you can read their minds too? From the looks of things, you may not even think credibility is looked at very seriously in any descent court of law, and simply shrug it off.
Just in case you missed it, here it is again: The point of exposing your totally avoidable lie, is to demonstrate that you are a chronic liar. And it's significant, because it piles on other lies of your's that have been exposed, in the course of the exchange.
quote:In light of the absence of a categorical statement from me stating I do know your age, which undeniably takes it out of the specific category when you told me I didn't know, how then can you reconcile this: ''I'm one of those ''odd'' people who tend to think independently and consider facts/empirical evidence making my assessments.'' with your reckless position on this age thing?
Even now you are at it again: You went from denying that you had in fact made a statement about my age, attributing it to some fictitious inability of mine to correctly read said comment from you, to now making a self-apologia and shedding crocodile tears about having made a statement about my age despite not knowing anything about it whatsoever.
As for the comment you are asking me to reconcile, I think you are high on drugs. How does that comment in any way have anything to do with your lie about my age. Explain!
Grumman, wake up and smell the coffee. I don't need a distraction from my statements. They are there on the record for anyone to examine them. Your derailing rambles--which are usually filled with misreadings of posts you are replying, unrepentant excuses for your discredited posts, and changing of goal posts--offered as a reply do little to alter their presence.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
''It was a comment, but it is *not a fact* that there's nothing more to it. You made a definite claim about my age, when there was no grounds for it. It's a lie, and quite simply, you were called on it. If you don't want to shed tears on being called out, then stop the misdeeds that get you into trouble. It's not a hard concept.
What's puzzling, is why you felt the need to lie about something as unnecessary as my age. What do you gain from a lie like that. If you are willing to lie about things of that nature, what then does that say about your state of mind? One thing for sure that it does say, is that you are untrustworthy for just about anything you say.
So, then this was supposed to be your sick idea of a revenge, i.e. on me, for some shyt that went down between you and some other poster. Why not take it up with him instead of making a total fool of yourself here? Gutless, maybe?
Showing that you are a chronic liar is obviously relevant to the discussion. You may not think that it is important, in which case you ought to speak just for yourself. Don't project your emotional opinion onto an audience you don't know, or are you here to convince them that you can read their minds too? From the looks of things, you may not even think credibility is looked at very seriously in any descent court of law, and simply shrug it off.
Just in case you missed it, here it is again: The point of exposing your totally avoidable lie, is to demonstrate that you are a chronic liar. And it's significant, because it piles on other lies of your's that have been exposed, in the course of the exchange.
Even now you are at it again: You went from denying that you had in fact made a statement about my age, attributing it to some fictitious inability of mine to correctly read said comment from you, to now making a self-apologia and shedding crocodile tears about having made a statement about my age despite not knowing anything about it whatsoever.
As for the comment you are asking me to reconcile, I think you are high on drugs. How does that comment in any way have anything to do with your lie about my age. Explain!
Knock! knock! ''uh, yes... he's in there.''
''Close the door quietly when you leave.''
''Okay, I will.''
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Question: Since when has Obama ever moved to the right?
He has increased the size of government dramatically which meant a dramatic increase in tax money spending (money which we don't have). He has pushed forth entitlement programs like the Healthcare bill and he has raised taxes to keep up with the wanton spending. His administration has also increased regulations which make it difficult for people to start businesses and make/earn money.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what exactly has he done that is "right"? You even talk about Civil Liberties but it is the left that has a habit of restricting liberties with regulations and laws. Hell, look at California with bans on all kinds of things.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Big government spending especially on the military is the mark of a fascist right wing state. The U.S. is now a fascist state under Obama.
On the health care issue, that was just a national application of Romney's health plan for Massachussetts: a huge bonanza for big Pharma and the health insurance companies.
And NDAA? A truly police state venture.
In short Obama is arguably the most right wing president in U.S history given the above and his full ermbrace of Wall Street and the big Banks. His fulsome show of affection for Dimon of Morgan Chase is one obvious proof.
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
Djehuti:
''He has increased the size of government dramatically which meant a dramatic increase in tax money spending (money which we don't have). He has pushed forth entitlement programs like the Healthcare bill and he has raised taxes to keep up with the wanton spending. His administration has also increased regulations which make it difficult for people to start businesses and make/earn money.''
...but the U.S. does have many billions to spend on wars. Money that is funded by taxpayers to some degree... and money we don't have?
According to some economic analysts Obama's health plan, in addition to insuring more of the less fortunate, is designed to curtail the continually rising costs of health care which if left to its own devices will implode and make it difficult for everyone. So all this means is you adopt a position pro or con and continue to argue about it until there's nothing left to discuss except for those who hate the others position. Simple as that. And what wanton spending are you referring to that necessitated raising taxes already to such a degree that the newpapers haven't been howling that it would hurt the middle class? I'll bet you might be referring to those big businessmen aren't you. And you don't think there should be regulations on unbridled capitalism? Well you probably don't think so because you said ''and make/earn money.''
Well it looks to me like you're putting an awful lot of trust in those who make that money. My home state of Ohio is an example. Hydraulic Fracturing or Fracking, is supposed to be the next best thing for this state. Natural gas up the ass; thousands of jobs are to be created. The only ''problem'' is environmentalists decided, after carefully checking the drilling companies records, they weren't being forthright about contaminating the areas drinking water. ''Oh it's safe with our process they say. We're in full control of this business.'' Well the environmentalists say bullshit you're lying about what percentage of this contaminant and what percentage of that chemical adds to the problem.
You may recall Obama, according to some sources , shouldn't have given the 2% reduction in Social Security payroll deductions which added another $40 dollars a week to take home pay. Well of course that's called robbing peter to pay paul. But democrats have no exclusivity on this issue of robbing themselves to pay someone else. Republicans are guilty too.
While no president can stand alone as an island, at times he has to adopt a position that he feels the ''majority'' of Americans want to follow. Romney feels he has the majority, Obama and his administration feel they have the upper hand.
Obama has held the insurance companies in check, at least for now, and helped Wall Street to the dismay of a lot of people; Romney will applaud that even though he will say he's against it.
Obama used taxpayer money to help the automobile industry get back on its feet, preconditions and all. So to tell the hundreds of thousands of direct automobile workers and all the related industries that taxpayer money wasn't well spent will fall on deal ears about the ''misuses'' of that money. I say this knowing full well there's supposed to be more to the story than that and there undoubtedly is. Obama's administration saved the industry from collapse according to many economic experts. But since there are Republican expert economists then surely they will have a different take. This is why I said it all depends on which side of the fence you stand on.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Djehuti:
''He has increased the size of government dramatically which meant a dramatic increase in tax money spending (money which we don't have). He has pushed forth entitlement programs like the Healthcare bill and he has raised taxes to keep up with the wanton spending. His administration has also increased regulations which make it difficult for people to start businesses and make/earn money.''
...but the U.S. does have many billions to spend on wars. Money that is funded by taxpayers to some degree... and money we don't have?
Those monies are mostly spent on wars for Izrael's strategic interest, so thats money well spent for Mary. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Question: Since when has Obama ever moved to the right?
He has increased the size of government dramatically which meant a dramatic increase in tax money spending (money which we don't have). He has pushed forth entitlement programs like the Healthcare bill and he has raised taxes to keep up with the wanton spending. His administration has also increased regulations which make it difficult for people to start businesses and make/earn money.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what exactly has he done that is "right"? You even talk about Civil Liberties but it is the left that has a habit of restricting liberties with regulations and laws. Hell, look at California with bans on all kinds of things.
Lamin said it right; he seems to know something about politics 101. Check his post.
Djehuti, what do you mean by "dramatic increase in the size of the government"? Describe what that entails, and how it differs from preceding U.S. administrations.
Obama has not increased any tax yet. You disagree, cite the source and details of this increase.
FYI: Yes, he has pushed a lot of re-election campaign rhetoric about letting the Bush taxes expire, and then increasing taxes on the rich...and even as rhetoric, these are by no means huge increases. Of course the rich cry about any amount of tax increase, even if it just amounts to a drop in the bucket, by their income standards; that's just how greedy they are.
As Lamin briefly noted, the so-called "Health care" Bill is really designed with pharmaceutical and insurance companies in mind, and to allow big business to minimize their spending on related benefits. For instance, penalizing those who can't afford to get health insurance, which is pretty much most of the wage-work force, is an "entitlement" in what sense? Explain.
BP oil spill underlies lack of regulation enforcement by the government. Not only had BP be given a pass, more permits are being issued by the government for more offshore drilling; also more environmentally-insensitive fracking. Corporate vulturism has not receded, with companies swallowing up many of their rivals who find themselves in financial hot-water. Speculations that drive up commodity prices have not been reigned in on. If Obama has introduced regulations that hinder aspirations for opening *small* business, he has done little to do the same for big business. If you know what heavy-handed regulation the Obama has bestowed on big business, which has nothing do with a bail-out, then list them for me.
You say, without offering specifics:
left that has a habit of restricting liberties with regulations and laws.
Are these "civil liberties" or "free market" or parasitic capitalism "liberties"; specify, and with examples!
Yep, I make a distinction between "liberties" of the aristocrats to put profit ahead of the well-being of the larger public, under the pretext of "free market" liberties, and "civil liberties" of ordinary folks.
"Californian bans on all kinds of things" have no bearing on the Obama administrations's own actions. The guy said he'd close Guantanamo Bay; it's still open! The guy said that shortly after his presidential inauguration, he'd bring in troops from overseas; that did not happen--the only reason he claims that troops will be withdrawn from Iraq, is that the Iraqi government refused to grant immunity for U.S. troops during any extended troop presence. The Obama administration were seeking an extension, not withdrawal, when the Iraqi government denied further immunity. Afghanistan? Well, Obama has not only not withdrawn troops, he had in fact *escalated* U.S. military action in that country!! The Obama administration actually increased the number of U.S. military conflict, when his campaign promise was to reduce them! He has made assassination [exemplified by drone assassinations] of political enemies an open policy, including U.S. citizens. He has pushed for wire-tapping and domestic spying. He has signed into law, mass/public anti-establishment protesting before the President as a "federal crime", in the name of "security". More immigrants had been deported under Obama's watch than had been under Bush. States are forced to cut social spending in the name of "cutting-costs", while military spending had actually risen dramatically under the Obama administration, contrary to right-wing fairy-tale stories. I highly doubt that these sort of actions are indications of "moving to the left", by any sober analysis.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I ain't infringing on you am I? This is the internet and it's a free for all, right.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)