OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[chrispedersen]

You don't have to tell me, Tichy, I just wanted to squash this particular conspiracy theory once and for all, and I think that's been accomplished.

As far as not going to court if you don't have to--well, who wants to do that? Who here enjoys the thought of jury duty? I also understand there are court fees involved, not to mention lawyer fees.

And the statement "You're not even qualified to bring your argument to my attention." holds as much weight for me as "Your argument is fallacious and silly and wrong." What's the difference?


Honey, I'm not being facetious - but the difference between those two statements is enormous. The first should be deeply offensive to every american citizen, in my opinion.

In the first instance, a judge is telling an american citizen he doesn't have the right to find out if a candidate is an american citizen. I think every american citizen has that right - and should want that right - just as we uphold every tenet of the constitution. This one guy paid his own money to investigate something, and paid the fees to have his day in court - and the judge said.. sorry an american citizen does not have that right.

This is VERY different than saying - your argument is fallacious and wrong, and it is hereby proved that Obama met the qualifications for office.

As for yours and other comments:

The best way to squash this would have been to provide a birth certificate to the court. Failing to do so only added fuel to the fire. The same suit has been brought in three separate venues.

Obama himself never had to appear in court - just like a traffic ticket, any representative could have presented the information.
Court fees are insignificant compared to the question - if it really was important, the prevailing party can seek to have the opponent pay ALL court costs (and expenses) for a frivelous suit.

For civil matters of this kind, there would probably not be a jury; this would probably be decided by a presiding judge, as it would be in both parties interests.

As for Gandalf's comment about the CIA: Call me an optimist. First, this as a jurisdiction matter would fall more under the purview of the Dept of Treasure (Secret Service), or the FBI than it would under the CIA, who by law would be enjoined from investigating it (foreign or counter intelligence only). Restating that, any cia agent investigating that would be subject to legal sanction.

So yes, I am optimistic that I don't believe the CIA investigated it. I also don't believe that ANY body actually has jurisdiction, which is why this is falling between the cracks. The party (as in party to a lawsuit) that does have presumptive jurisdiction is the democrat party, which is why it was name in the lawsuit.

[chrispedersen]

Ok, well, I'm glad that's straightened out. Now that he's President, it's good to know that he's a citizen of the United States. Thanks for clearing that up, Chrispedersen.

Honey, you meant the comment flippantly. And you are not practising the tolerance you preached a mere two? posts ago.

First, Barrak is not the president of the United States, he's the president elect.

Second, this is the reason these kinds of things matter.

IF Barack was found not to be a natural born citizen (and no I don't think it will happen) it is entirely possible that his selection as President would be voided. His inauguration would not be legal.

And if you thought 2000 was bad, all hell would break loose. This is one of the reasons I thought these kinds of questions should have been resolved back in August.

[HoneyBadger]

Chrispedersen, lots of people aren't qualified to bring their arguments to the attention of others. There's nothing offensive about that notion, except to those very people who spend their time wasting the time, and patience, and good nature, of others, with their nonsensical-and at times malevolently motivated-flights of fancy.

We're forced to tolerate them, because our legal system is a benevolent one that acts to embrace and protect the broadest base of the population as possible, and because we're a generous and reasonable people who like to think of ourselves as open-minded. But it doesn't transform their trivial foci into anything grand or noble.

[HoneyBadger]

I'm tolerant, within reason. I'm not idiotic, or a floormat. You seem to be under the impression that I should embrace every idea, without a modicum of my own opinion or will or side, or else be damned a hypocrite. That's just not the case.

[licker]

I've tried to stay out of this, but really. Comparing someone to Bush? That sounds a lot like ad hominem to me (plus, HB might like Bush and consider that a compliment, though it was fairly clearly, to me, meant as an insult).

Just saying... :)

Edit: Also, why compare HB to Bush? The current flow of the thread had very little, if anything, to do with bush. HB wasn't saying (s)he (I forget which gender HB is, unfortunately; sigh, and sorry HB) isn't like Bush, you just threw the comment out there. At least, that's how it seems to me.

Hey, he brought up bush first, in a negative light, that wasn't the first time I made this comparison to what I perceived to be a hypocritical position. If you want all the facts please read all the posts, else you are merely cherry picking statements out of context.

Besides how do you know I'm not bush or a member of his family and HBs insults towards Bush personal attacks on me???

Seriously people, this is an OT thread on politics, if you can't take a little fire why are you here? Besides, does HB have an issue with my statement? If not does he need a nanny to 'protect' him?

Hell you want to express a strong opinion about bush or obama or whomever (again, in the context of THIS thread) and not be willing to have some back and forth?

I dunno, I don't see anything out of hand in this thread, though there have been some strong opinions expressed.

[PashaDawg]

Hello:

I am quite pleased that Obama won. :)

However, I agree that our electoral system should be tweaked to foster the viability of political parties other than the two major parties. (I am satisfied with the overall system in the Constitution, with the three independent branches of government and the various checks and balances.)

To loosen the hold of the two major parties, I wonder if a simple change to the options on the ballot might help substantially. Here's what I suggest:

1. For each political office, the voter would get to vote for a first choice and a second choice. This would encourage voters to choose an "alternative" party first and then hedge with the second; and

2. The voter would also always have a third choice, which is "none of the above". If "none of the above" is chosen by the majority, then a new election is held and the previous candidates are excluded from the ballot.

I think there would be wrinkles to iron out, but I think these simple changes could have a profound effect.

They could probably be first instituted on a state level (e.g., state legislators and governors), perhaps by a citizens' referendum. In Maine, for instance, citizens can use a petition process to get laws passed by a referendum on the ballot and thereby circumvent the state legislature and governor. No doubt the two major parties would oppose these measures.

Pasha

[Tichy]

Chrispedersen: You're misunderstanding how the legal system works. It's not a matter a judge deciding what the American people have or don't have the right to know. It's a matter of who does or does not have the legal standing to bring a particular lawsuit in a particular venue. The guy who brought that suit didn't have the legal standing to bring it so it was dismissed.

Now...there are plenty of people who could have challenged Obama on this, who did have the standing to bring such a suit. I guarantee you that if the McCain campaign thought for an instant there was anything to this at all they would have been all over it. In fact, that extremely canny and aggressive campaigner, Hilary Clinton, would have nailed his *** three ways to sunday on it before he even got out of the gate if there was even a vapors wisp of a snowballs chance in the devil's anus that there was a legitimate issue here.

No one but the fringiest whack job tried to bring the suit, because no one but the fringiest whack job thought there was anything to it at all.

And now back to our regularly scheduled Monkey PD Monkey PD Monkey PD!

[DrPraetorious]

Also, he's a gay muslim socialist.

I'm a completely partisan Democrat - if we had a real leftist party in this country, I'd be a complete partisan for them.

Since I'm a scientist (as in, the natural sciences), this is not surprising - I'd say that I'm easily in the leftmost 5% of the general population but not even in the leftmost quartile of scientists.

So yes of course I voted for Obama. I was also working for my aunt (who is progressive so far as mainstream democrats go) on her election campaign. It's a nail-biter - she's down by ~100 votes but there are thousands of ballots left to count.

[licker]

Why on earth would you want to label most scientists as being democrats? and far left leaning democrats at that?

I can guarantee you that this is simply not reality.

Further with regards to the lawsuit...

Who does have cause to bring this lawsuit forward? I'd like to know if anyone actually has some facts to back their opinions or if its just everyone spinning their wheels.

[chrispedersen]

Chrispedersen: You're misunderstanding how the legal system works. It's not a matter a judge deciding what the American people have or don't have the right to know. It's a matter of who does or does not have the legal standing to bring a particular lawsuit in a particular venue. The guy who brought that suit didn't have the legal standing to bring it so it was dismissed.

I'm not misunderstanding in the least. This is exactly what I've represented from the start. The suit was thrown out for lack of standing... as I've said on at least two occassions.

I just disagree with it. As an american democrat, whose candidate *lost* he is an aggrieved party. As Obama took delegates in PA it seems a reasonable venue; under civil law one of the services of suit is the location where the incident occured.

As I said earlier - I believe every american should have standing.


Now...there are plenty of people who could have challenged Obama on this, who did have the standing to bring such a suit. I guarantee you that if the McCain campaign thought for an instant there was anything to this at all they would have been all over it. In fact, that extremely canny and aggressive campaigner, Hilary Clinton, would have nailed his *** three ways to sunday on it before he even got out of the gate if there was even a vapors wisp of a snowballs chance in the devil's anus that there was a legitimate issue here.

No one but the fringiest whack job tried to bring the suit, because no one but the fringiest whack job thought there was anything to it at all.

The 'fringiest whack job' was formerly the deputy attorney general for the state of Pennsylvania. With more than 20 years in the successful practise of law. So I don't think you can actually characterize him as 'fringe whack job.' In fact a fringe whack job could be denied the ability to practise law under the 'good moral character' provision required in most states.

If you wish to argue that he is a political hack - thats another question.

However, the character of the person bringing suit, as well as their motiviations are entirely irrelevent to strength (or lack there of) of the case.

Look, multimember districts were ruled unconstitutional because they diluted minority voting rights - and they were challenged by a minority voter, because they *theoretically* disenfranchised minority candidates.

Bergs standing - as an allegedly actually disenfranchised voter is at least as strong.

I'm obviously Don Quixote here. Unless someone doesn't understand my points, or asks a question I won't respond further.
But these are my points:

1. Every american should have standing until a court or similarly designated agency has determined a candidates qualification.
2. No federal agency currently determines the qualifications for office, to the limit of my patience to investigate it.
3. I think some federal agency SHOULD determine qualifications. Just as some state agency should determine state qualifications (And in fact they do in some states). Currently their respective parties determine it, and I don't believe this honor system which may have worked 200 years ago, is appropriate now; which leads to
3b. Conversely, I believe it is incumbent upon every political candidate to affirmatively prove that he meets the qualification for the office sought.
4. I think as a political decision it is curious that obama sought to have the case dismissed on the basis of standing, rather than putting the issue to rest by providing a birth certificate.
5. I think it was a mistake of him to do so.
6. You are quite correct. I think that *if* there was any significant likelihood that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, that Hillary would have sued personally. (As a caveat, according to Berg, he only discovered the information by sending an investigator to Kenya.) But to me it is more a question 1. I think americans should have standing and 3b that every candidate needs to validate that he in fact does qualify.

[sum1lost]

Why on earth would you want to label most scientists as being democrats? and far left leaning democrats at that?

Actually, I've heard this as well, and if it wasn't almost 1AM here, would be looking up the sources where it could be found, as I read it in some rather serious nonfiction not two weeks ago. Many of the attitudes found in the right, specifically those personified by Gov. Palin, don't seat well with the majority of scientests, nor do the many crusades some members of the right have fought against science. Seriously, most of the objections to the idea of global warming, stem cell research, evolution, environmental calamities in general etc have come from right (primarily the religious right at that, though big business has played its part at times).

Add to that the fact that scientests, as a whole, tend to be very irreligious, and they tend to step even further away from the right on many issues.

[Lingchih]

Well, it is over folks. Let us try and work together now. There are a lot of problems in the old US.

[Tichy]

Ok -- I was misunderstanding your point. I was under the impression that you were promoting the theory of Obama's non-native-citizenship. If you're focusing on a procedural issue, ok, it probably would be better to have a set-in-stone credentialing process, if only to avoid circus sideshows like these lawsuits.

My 'whack job' assumption was on the basis of the "obamacrimes" website. The name of the site alone screams 'truthie' and beyond that it has the perpetually outraged tone of the most hardened conspiracy theorist. "Learn the truth about Obama's assault on the constitution!" Please. His supporter Lan Lamphere's site suggests that Rahm Emanuel is "the new face of Ernst Röhm." (Godwin, are you listening?) Berg may have at one time been on his rocker. Now, he ain't. Now he associates with people who can say "patriot brigade" with a straight face.

[licker]

Why on earth would you want to label most scientists as being democrats? and far left leaning democrats at that?

Actually, I've heard this as well, and if it wasn't almost 1AM here, would be looking up the sources where it could be found, as I read it in some rather serious nonfiction not two weeks ago. Many of the attitudes found in the right, specifically those personified by Gov. Palin, don't seat well with the majority of scientests, nor do the many crusades some members of the right have fought against science. Seriously, most of the objections to the idea of global warming, stem cell research, evolution, environmental calamities in general etc have come from right (primarily the religious right at that, though big business has played its part at times).

Add to that the fact that scientests, as a whole, tend to be very irreligious, and they tend to step even further away from the right on many issues.

What does being irreligious (though even that is an exaggeration) have to do with being a democrat?

I do believe that you are falling for the 'I saw a black bird, therefore all birds are black' fallacy.

Scientists may well have educated opinions on global warming or evolution, but that doesn't make them necessarily far left, other than if you want to stick that stupid spectrum individually on every issue.

Indeed, I have found most scientists outside of academia to be far more conservative with respect to issues of the economy or foreign policy than the average non scientist, but again, that doesn't necessarily place them by default into any one group.

Hell I work at a national lab in a community where the majority of people have advanced degrees in a natural science (as do I) and the electoral split is almost 50/50 for the county.

I've been at universities, and within the departments I was affiliated with the split was still not as extreme as is being touted. My observations showed that it was not those in the natural sciences who were left leaning, but rather the faculty in the social sciences and arts. That's not terribly surprising I think, but it doesn't support the assertion that a majority of scientists in this country are far left.

Most scientists know a far right nutter when they see one, and when topics such as ID come up they deal with that topic, not entire platforms of parties, but individuals within a party who may be promoting some agenda they disagree with.

[Ylvali]

This Left-right discussion is interesting. Many people here (in sweden) would consider both republicans and democrats to be more or less right wing. Our Right wing goverment that we have right now is much closer to the democrats than to the republicans.

What we call leftist would be those parties left of the social-democrats (which we consider in the middle, and who stand a good deal left of the US democrats)

That would include the Left-party (yes thats the actual name!), and the various communist parties. While the greens fall in their own category.

[JimMorrison]

And [Reagan] is widely regarded as the icon of the american conservative movement.

con·ser·va·tism (kÉ™n-sûr'vÉ™-tÄ*z'É™m) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

I hardly see how this makes him a saint. According the dictionary, this sort of outlook borders on fascism. As far as fiscal conservatism goes, I have a hard time fitting someone into that ideology, who had the voracious ability to spend, as he did. Let's make this very clear - Carter, whom you seem to want to demonize, overspent to a FAR lesser degree than Reagan. In fact, even though fiscal conservatism is all about "minimal government", in such a capacity as the intent is to make government smaller, to make the government financial drain smaller - Reagan seems to have failed utterly miserably. Fiscal conservative policies in America are as old as the nation itself. Originally the idea was to have a federal government that intruded as little as possible on the lives of Americans, that maintained a minimal military and as such, spent as little as possible at all times, thus keeping us free from the temptation to use a bloated military offensively, yet leave us able to rapidly expand the military, should the need arise. So in the terms of classical conservatism, Reagan falls flat. He may be a hero to the neo-cons, but judging by their political methods, they are a gross abomination of American ideals.


A long period of prosperity at home, the most successful arms reductions we ever had with the soviets, a major role in freeing eastern europe from the USSR

The USSR was forced to collapse, through political intrigue most of all. Unfortunately, our method of causing this, was by convincing OPEC to increase oil production. The resulting increase in supply caused the price of oil to plummet dramatically, and due to the USSR sustaining its economy on oil exports, it ended the cold war, and caused all of the nifty things we associate with that. Unfortunately, it did also cause a lot of destabilization in the Middle East. So indirectly, mister Reagan is partially responsible for the debacle we face now.


- dramatic reductions in unemployment, and inflation.

Absolutely and patently false. According, once again, the government report on the economy, Reagan almost broke the 10% unemployment mark, and had the highest unemployment rate recorded (probably only surpassed by the Great Depression). In fact, LBJ had about the lowest unemployment possible (~3%), which stabilized under Nixon and Carter to more moderate levels, and then skyrocketed under Reagan. Bush Sr managed to still give Clinton a 7.5% unemployment rate, which he pushed down to 4%, just in time for it to start growing again under Bush Jr (while we've started cutting off people's benefits, and thus not considering them unemployed once their benefits end - whether they are working or not).

Inflation is a more complicated issue, as while the average citizen has many reasons to hate inflation, our contrived method of finance requires a certain level of inflation in order to function smoothly. Therefore, unless you have studied this effect in full (for example, 2% inflation is called a "recession", even though the economy is technically still growing), then it is hard to argue which President actually has the healthiest levels of inflation while in office (though most would agree it seems Carter had too high inflation, and Bush Jr had too low, what falls between is not clear cut, plus Republicans seem to want to blame GW's woes on Clinton, why can't we blame Nixon for some of Carter's tribulations....?).



Thousands of americans from across the political divide thought he was a great president - including those that were his political opponents such as Tip O'Neil, Walter Mondale

Public opinion does not alter the facts of the matter. Honestly, I care much less for what people think, than I do about what actually achieves desirable results. Unfortunately, we have been proving time and time again in this country that people will act from a basis of opinion, rather than fact, and that it often provides us with undesirable results.


His allies loved him, including european leaders (thatcher for example) and his enemies respected him.

You can have the last word on Reagan....

Say what you will about the man as a diplomat, perhaps that was his shining value to the world (I hesitate to say nation, because we had such a profound effect on the world at that time, it's nice to think SOME of it was positive), but then again, it seems readily apparent that Clinton/Gore were even more loved and respected by the world community, but since you like to downplay that contribution, I don't think you value it highly as anything more than as a tool to try to prove your other points.

[Tifone]

Tired of the old "He's a Muslim!" "He's a Terrorist!" "He's a socialist!" absurd rants?

Ready for something new, more sophisticated and (incredible, but even more) absurd? ;)

http://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/obamawhitehouse.jpg

Because only Dom3 players know how evil this can be!!! :D

(Sorry for poor quality)

[JimMorrison]

OMG..... Who knew he was actually a Dom10, D9 Prince of Death?!

Hurry, someone build The Ark before he gets to Cons8. :shock:

[Tifone]

It's too late anyway Jim. The "H3 priests" are around doing THIS:

http://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/godhates4.jpghttp://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/godhates2.jpghttp://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/godhates1.jpghttp://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/godhates5.jpghttp://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/godhates3.jpg

So now they're busy, the undead walk the earth and we are screwed. Aren't you happy? :hurt:

(All the images, even the ones with children, are of public domain and uncensored, so no privacy issues with the pics)

[chrispedersen]

And [Reagan] is widely regarded as the icon of the american conservative movement.

con·ser·va·tism (kən-sûr'və-tĪz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

I hardly see how this makes him a saint. According the dictionary, this sort of outlook borders on fascism.

Jim, once again someone in here throws out the term of fascism. Once again I will throw out the definition of fascism, and ask you not to not to bandy about such insulting terms.

from dictionary.com "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

a CONSERVATIVE, with a *distrust* of government is the *opposite* of a fascist who wishes complete government control of industry, commerce, etc.

Calling a conservative fascist because they dislike sudden change is like calling our founding father communists because they both had an abiding love of their country.

Why is it Jim that those on the opposite side feel free to bandy about such offenseive terms. How would you feel about it if I said we were closer to a fascist state now that Obama your saviour is in power, since we now have a monolithic congress and presidency- and since we will certainly have more government programs and controls.


As far as fiscal conservatism goes, I have a hard time fitting someone into that ideology, who had the voracious ability to spend, as he did. Let's make this very clear - Carter, whom you seem to want to demonize, I have no need to demonize carter. He was such a miserable president that the republicans won the biggest landslide ever after him, scoring 525 electoral college votes in 1984.

overspent to a FAR lesser degree than Reagan. In fact, even though fiscal conservatism is all about "minimal government", in such a capacity as the intent is to make government smaller, to make the government financial drain smaller - Reagan seems to have failed utterly miserably. Fiscal conservative policies in America are as old as the nation itself. Originally the idea was to have a federal government that intruded as little as possible on the lives of Americans, that maintained a minimal military and as such, spent as little as possible at all times, thus keeping us free from the temptation to use a bloated military offensively, yet leave us able to rapidly expand the military, should the need arise. So in the terms of classical conservatism, Reagan falls flat. He may be a hero to the neo-cons, but judging by their political methods, they are a gross abomination of American ideals.

Jim, again I don't see why you can't disagree without being disagreeable. I don't call liberals abominations. Clinton used the IRS to investigate his political opponents - that doesn't make all democrats abominations.

We all hopefully share a love of country, and desire everyone in our nation to prosper. We all have different ideas on the best path to that. I would be *MORE* than happy to allow a lot of experimentation in government programs *if* they were allowed to fail if they achieved no results. Ie., you want a program to increase literacy? Fine. Lets pilot test it. And if it works, and is more cost effective than other programs -we'll expand the program. But if it doesn't work.. it *dies*. No further funding. Clearly defined goals. Clearly defined targets. Clearly defined success or failure.

I think liberals believe that the goernment is or should be the shining focus of what america is. America is great because we have laws against wiretaps, america is great because we spend 1 trillion dollars on welfare programs.

Whereas I believe that government is a necessary evil. The strength of america is in its people, is in its economy, is in its generosity. We have 300 million people living and working - and much that is good in this country has *nothing* to do with government.


A long period of prosperity at home, the most successful arms reductions we ever had with the soviets, a major role in freeing eastern europe from the USSR

The USSR was forced to collapse, through political intrigue most of all. Unfortunately, our method of causing this, was by convincing OPEC to increase oil production. The resulting increase in supply caused the price of oil to plummet dramatically, and due to the USSR sustaining its economy on oil exports, it ended the cold war, and caused all of the nifty things we associate with that. Unfortunately, it did also cause a lot of destabilization in the Middle East.

Uhuh.

Exactly when were you calling the middle east stable..
during the arab israeli war of the 60's? The oil embargo of the 70's? The Kuwait/Iraq/Iran wars of the 80s? The Israeli/palestinian intidefada?

See, if you read Kissinger's book diplomacy, it documents instability in the area dating back - oh well long before Reagan.

According to the the son of the last shah of Iran's book. It was Jimmy Carter's pressure on his father that caused him to abdicate. Leading to Khomeini, the capture of the american embassy, and the world facing the imminent possibility of Iran with nuclear weapons.

So indirectly, mister Reagan is partially responsible for the debacle we face now.

Absolutely and patently false. According, once again, the government report on the economy, Reagan almost broke the 10% unemployment mark, and had the highest unemployment rate recorded (probably only surpassed by the Great Depression).

Reagan did almost break the 10% unemployment , here is the link to the Bureau of labor statistics.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNU04000000&years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data

Jim you may be too young to remember it - but the term the misery index was coined during the carter years because of how crappy the economy was doing. Unemployment + inflaction of 20.7 percent.

Yes, regan inherited a crappy situation - but at the end of his first term, the misery index was 11.8 - and lower at the end of his second term. When he arrived in office unemployment was 7.2% - when he left it was 5.5%.

In fact, LBJ had about the lowest unemployment possible (~3%), which stabilized under Nixon and Carter to more moderate levels, and then skyrocketed under Reagan. Bush Sr managed to still give Clinton a 7.5% unemployment rate, which he pushed down to 4%, just in time for it to start growing again under Bush Jr (while we've started cutting off people's benefits, and thus not considering them unemployed once their benefits end - whether they are working or not).

I'm not going to respond to every fallacy, but .. where do you have the idea that people are not considered unemployed once their benefits end?

I mean factually, our benefits were always supposed to end. When they were originally passed collecting unemployment was called the 5240 club - you could collect 40dollars for 52 weeks.
Unemployment was supposed to help you get through a tough spot - not be a lifestyle choice.

And generally americans support the idea of helping people through tough spots - were just not keen on the idea of you subsiding on welfare indefinitely.

Lastly, there are thousands of articles written on people that are un or under employed but have given up looking. No one I know considers them employed. No one I know has accurate figures for the number of these people, including you.


Inflation is a more complicated issue, as while the average citizen has many reasons to hate inflation, our contrived method of finance requires a certain level of inflation in order to function smoothly. Therefore, unless you have studied this effect in full (for example, 2% inflation is called a "recession", even though the economy is technically still growing), then it is hard to argue which President actually has the healthiest levels of inflation while in office (though most would agree it seems Carter had too high inflation, and Bush Jr had too low, what falls between is not clear cut, plus Republicans seem to want to blame GW's woes on Clinton, why can't we blame Nixon for some of Carter's tribulations....?).

If you read my actual previous quotes I believe that trends certainly last beyond presidents. Its one of the many reasons I am opposed to the statistics you tried to use to establish that democrats were better than republicans.

I certainly do believe that carter inherited some of his problems - but I also think that carters poor handling of the economy, poor handling of the oil embargo, poor handling of the shah of iran - and hundreds of other problems qualify him as a poor president.




Thousands of americans from across the political divide thought he was a great president - including those that were his political opponents such as Tip O'Neil, Walter Mondale

Public opinion does not alter the facts of the matter. Honestly, I care much less for what people think, than I do about what actually achieves desirable results. Unfortunately, we have been proving time and time again in this country that people will act from a basis of opinion, rather than fact, and that it often provides us with undesirable results.

Only because there are many ways to interpret fact.
Right now we have 4.7% unemployment, 3.1% inflation. Would you seriously try to argue that things are good? But thats what you tried to do with the statistics before. People may not be able to quote facts and statistics - but they know when a country is doing well.

but then again, it seems readily apparent that Clinton/Gore were even more loved and respected by the world community, but since you like to downplay that contribution, I don't think you value it highly as anything more than as a tool to try to prove your other points.

Being liked or respected is not the objective, nor the measure of our leaders, but it can be a side effect of being an effective politician.

I believe that clinton was an incredibly skillful politician. But I don't see what his lasting contribution will be. What accomplishment will he be remembered for? I think he will be generally remembered for a good economy, refurbishing the democratic image, monica lewinsky and being impeached.

[Gandalf Parker]

...

[Gregstrom]

Quite.

[PyroStock]

Obviously, there will be many different experiences among many different people. However, anecdotal observations are invaluable in assessing the reality of situations (as long as those observers are honest), in ways that a more removed "authority" may not be able to see. That is, unless more people gathering information on such things want to take the time and effort to make up a fake story, and call around various organizations, fishing for data.

Invaluable for assessing the reality of those specific situations individually, but limited anecdotal evidence is poor for making sweeping generalizations.

[JimMorrison]

Jim, once again someone in here throws out the term of fascism. Once again I will throw out the definition of fascism, and ask you not to not to bandy about such insulting terms.

I said "borders on", not "equates to". The relationship is not direct, but there are similarities in the methods, and in the speeches of our right-wing politicians, and others who are blatantly fascist.


Why is it Jim that those on the opposite side feel free to bandy about such offenseive terms. How would you feel about it if I said we were closer to a fascist state now that Obama your saviour is in power, since we now have a monolithic congress and presidency- and since we will certainly have more government programs and controls.

Well it just feels like you intentionally misunderstood my statement, and now are using that misunderstanding to try to upset me. Well it won't work, because first, if you call Obama -my- savior, then it just makes me feel like you aren't paying attention, as I've stated multiple times that I don't think Obama has "the answers". However, I feel that math alone shows that McCain can not be trusted with the Presidency, especially in such a difficult time as Georgie Bush has led us to.


I have no need to demonize carter. He was such a miserable president that the republicans won the biggest landslide ever after him, scoring 525 electoral college votes in 1984.

I'm pretty sure that Reagan defeated Carter in 1980..... Mondale wasn't cut out to be President, I'm certainly not going to defend him.


Jim, again I don't see why you can't disagree without being disagreeable. I don't call liberals abominations. Clinton used the IRS to investigate his political opponents - that doesn't make all democrats abominations.

The neo-con movement tries in a multitude of ways, to subvert the spirit of America, while denouncing anyone who disagrees as "unAmerican". I'll go into more detail if you wish to share that you claim yourself as neo-con, and maybe we can discuss the relative merits of the movement. From what I can see now, it is truly poisonous to the prosperity of America, and it leads to Presidents like Bush, and the idolization of said Presidents.


We all hopefully share a love of country, and desire everyone in our nation to prosper. We all have different ideas on the best path to that. I would be *MORE* than happy to allow a lot of experimentation in government programs *if* they were allowed to fail if they achieved no results. Ie., you want a program to increase literacy? Fine. Lets pilot test it. And if it works, and is more cost effective than other programs -we'll expand the program. But if it doesn't work.. it *dies*. No further funding. Clearly defined goals. Clearly defined targets. Clearly defined success or failure.

Hey, it's a good point. Unfortunately, our governmental system doesn't support that sort of empirical testing of programs. No President is guaranteed to be in office for more than 4 years, so if they want to accomplish something, that's how long they have. If it takes 1 year to plan out the initiatives, you are looking at a maximum of 3 years to implement the plans, gather data, interpret the data, and then plan and implement the final program. Given a guarantee of 8 years it would be more simple, but no one is going to win a re-election off of "well organized testing". That is to say, if those pilot projects are still in progress, and no final determination has been made, no plans set before Congress, and nothing actually substantial accomplished - the American people will likely want someone new.

I'm a "standing on the shoulders of giants" type of guy, in such things. We have numerous socialized/universal health care programs in active use in different countries, that are for the most part far larger than any test group that we would organize. In this particular case, I agree with (was it ICH?) whoever it was that said we could probably look at these systems, and use that knowledge to build our own system, far faster than if we reinvented it from scratch.


I think liberals believe that the goernment is or should be the shining focus of what america is. America is great because we have laws against wiretaps, america is great because we spend 1 trillion dollars on welfare programs.

I suppose I can see how you might feel that way - but it makes me wonder how many liberals you know in person? The way that I look at it, is this - the larger any collection of people becomes, the larger their logistical problems become. Say we have 100 people licing on an island, and 1 is a doctor. Well, you have a problem, you walk over and talk to the doctor. He doesn't complain about pay, because he is clothed, and fed, and supported. He does his job for the community, and everyone does what they do, and take care of eachother. Expand that to 1000 with 10 doctors. At this point, you probably want to make an appointment before you visit the doc, maybe call around and see if one isn't busy. At this point, he has to do the same thing as well, he has to go chasing after the things that he needs, to make sure he isn't lost in the shuffle. Now, extrapolate that out to a population of 300mil+. Our world is insanely complex and impersonal. The only way that we can achieve any level of efficiency in a system this large, is to organize it. Granted, there is always going to be a tug-of-war between the efficiency gained from organizing a system, and the efficiency lost in creating larger and larger infrastructure to handle the load.

It is because of that coefficient, that I actually believe states should handle most things. But the Federal Government is very pervasive, and intrudes on my life in many ways, and demands an awful lot of money. It is my feeling that if the government is going to be so voracious, that it needs to learn how to perform tasks worthy of that sort of investment - otherwise, we would be better off in many ways, without such a large nation (that is to say, at our government's current level of efficiency, I very much feel that Oregon's 3 million people would have a higher standard of living as a sovereign nation-state).

Yes, our government is quite corrupt, and irresponsible. I honestly do not think that either of the dominant political parties is on the right track as to how to fix it - possibly because so many of them are corrupt, why would they WANT to fix it?


Exactly when were you calling the middle east stable..
during the arab israeli war of the 60's? The oil embargo of the 70's? The Kuwait/Iraq/Iran wars of the 80s? The Israeli/palestinian intidefada?

See, if you read Kissinger's book diplomacy, it documents instability in the area dating back - oh well long before Reagan.

Look, I didn't say that the Middle East was stable before Reagan. However, of significant note, we did aid Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. We will never know if we might have had better luck negotiating with Iran now, had we not made that choice, nor will we ever know how much weaker Iraq might have been, and thus perhaps not looked like someone we needed to spend a trillion dollars to occupy.....


Reagan did almost break the 10% unemployment , here is the link to the Bureau of labor statistics.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNU04000000&years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data

Jim you may be too young to remember it - but the term the misery index was coined during the carter years because of how crappy the economy was doing. Unemployment + inflaction of 20.7 percent.

Yes, regan inherited a crappy situation - but at the end of his first term, the misery index was 11.8 - and lower at the end of his second term. When he arrived in office unemployment was 7.2% - when he left it was 5.5%.[/quote]

Carter's highest unemployment was 7.7%, Reagan's was 9.7%. The spike in inflation rate http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp clearly began under Ford. While I will cut Carter little slack for being unable to bring it under control (neither did the voting public), it is obvious that he did not cause the problem, he simply failed to solve it. Oh and a footnote, the Misery Index was devised before Carter, he referenced it during his campaign, to shift public opinion away from Ford.


I'm not going to respond to every fallacy, but .. where do you have the idea that people are not considered unemployed once their benefits end?

Our measure of unemployment was "refined" such that it only tracks people who are currently receiving unemployment benefits. If somehow you manage to make it to the end of your 6 months, you are no longer counted by the system.


I mean factually, our benefits were always supposed to end. When they were originally passed collecting unemployment was called the 5240 club - you could collect 40dollars for 52 weeks.
Unemployment was supposed to help you get through a tough spot - not be a lifestyle choice.

And generally americans support the idea of helping people through tough spots - were just not keen on the idea of you subsiding on welfare indefinitely.

Lastly, there are thousands of articles written on people that are un or under employed but have given up looking. No one I know considers them employed. No one I know has accurate figures for the number of these people, including you.

Yes, "helping people through a rough spot". I would consider it a pretty rough spot when we elect Presidents who give tax breaks to companies who outsource labor, and leave us in a situation where we are steadily losing jobs, while creating more workers. Yet, we do not account for this in any way with our "aid".

And yes, we know very well that there is not an adequate way to measure the number of discouraged or underemployed workers in America. As long as it benefits those in power, to keep it that way, it will likely remain that way.


If you read my actual previous quotes I believe that trends certainly last beyond presidents. Its one of the many reasons I am opposed to the statistics you tried to use to establish that democrats were better than republicans.

I certainly do believe that carter inherited some of his problems - but I also think that carters poor handling of the economy, poor handling of the oil embargo, poor handling of the shah of iran - and hundreds of other problems qualify him as a poor president.

If you noticed, the table of compiled data in that article has a tab labeled "1 year shift", which attributes the first year of a President's numbers, to the preceding President. While this does in fact manage to narrow the gap a little bit, there is still a clear disparity.

Yet again, I don't hold Carter in particularly high regard as an executive officer. Great guy, poor President. A lot of people feel the same way about GW right about now.


Right now we have 4.7% unemployment, 3.1% inflation. Would you seriously try to argue that things are good? But thats what you tried to do with the statistics before. People may not be able to quote facts and statistics - but they know when a country is doing well.

Economic indicators will always trail behind noteworthy events, if for no other reason that the time it takes to tabulate them accurately. Obviously those economic indicators will not look so favorable over the next several months, as the fallout of recent events is realized - but you're not going to get accurate current rates of inflation and unemployment when our stock market scare is barely a few weeks old.


I believe that clinton was an incredibly skillful politician. But I don't see what his lasting contribution will be. What accomplishment will he be remembered for? I think he will be generally remembered for a good economy, refurbishing the democratic image, monica lewinsky and being impeached.

Well I never said that Clinton accomplished much of anything profound. Oddly, it seems that most other countries measure their leaders on 2 factors first - their ability to build and maintain favorable foreign relations, and their ability to not ruin the country. Beyond that, many people seem to understand that not all leaders are outstanding. I mean, what is Bush Jr going to be remembered for? I can tell you, it's a no-brainer which Wikipedia entry I'd rather have my name on. ;)

[Epaminondas]

ROFL, I can't believe this thread swelled into almost 30-pages!

[NTJedi]

Mine has been this...
Under the Democrats we will become the Federation.
Under the Republicans we will become the Ferrengi.

Republicans may be Ferrengi, but the Democrats Federation??? :rolleyes:
You think way too highly of the Democrats to know the details of what's going on in government.
I'd say they're closer to being The Borg.

On a side note the Democrats own the presidency, the majority of the Congress and the majority of Governors... let's see what happens. I'll revive the thread in 3 years so we can examine what they've done now that they're in full control.

[Tifone]

You think way too highly of the Democrats to know the details of what's going on in government.
I'd say they're closer to being The Borg.

Mmh, sounds like an "Admitting defeat with class FAIL" :re:

Oh btw, as it didn't come out in the discussion till now, I'd like to point out what a great speech was MacCain's conceding one that night. Very proud, very American, he showed a class act really. :)

Pity for those nasty booers while he was saying with dignity that Obama is now *his* president too and the USA should go on unified, as a whole. But some people should just remain into their closet. :down:

[lch]

Mine has been this...
Under the Democrats we will become the Federation.
Under the Republicans we will become the Ferrengi.

Republicans may be Ferrengi, but the Democrats Federation??? :rolleyes:
You think way too highly of the Democrats to know the details of what's going on in government.
You probably think too high of the Federation, is all. ;)

[JimMorrison]

Mine has been this...
Under the Democrats we will become the Federation.
Under the Republicans we will become the Ferrengi.

Republicans may be Ferrengi, but the Democrats Federation??? :rolleyes:
You think way too highly of the Democrats to know the details of what's going on in government.
You probably think too high of the Federation, is all. ;)


Which is odd, since they seem to be a highly Communist heirarchy..... < ducks >

[Tichy]

I think the Dems are more like the Bajorans.
Oh look at the adorable nose fringes.
Oh wait, oh crap, they can fight!

Deep cuts. Nerd cuts.

[Bwaha]

If you want to whats really going on, research UN agenda 21. I think you will be rather dismayed. Our local dear leaders have started implementing it here and our ability to rebuild on our own land is being held up by non-issuance of building permits.

After all owning a home in the mountains is not a sustainable development. They want to build a Stalinist housing complex that is connected to mass transit. no need for cars, thats not sustainable. Our little community is a test project for this agenda, And I think it stinks.


I think I'm gonna follow Albert Einsteins example, split before they close our borders. They (the government) have been allowing the construction of private owned prisons, quite a growth industry. I wonder who they intend to populate these complexes with. If you want more info on this look up corpwatch.

Those who don't remember history are bound to repeat it. I hope I'm proven wrong in these fears. Truly I do.

[PyroStock]

Which is odd, since they seem to be a highly Communist heirarchy..... < ducks >

I'm no Star Trek expert, but Wiki has the Federation as a form of a liberal democracy and constitutional republic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets)

/yes, I know you ducked....

I think the Dems are more like the Bajorans.
Oh look at the adorable nose fringes.
Oh wait, oh crap, they can fight!

The Cardassians brutally enslaved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bajoran) them for over 40years until the Cardassian civilian leaders decided to leave.

[Tifone]

If you want to whats really going on, research UN agenda 21. I think you will be rather dismayed. Our local dear leaders have started implementing it here and our ability to rebuild on our own land is being held up by non-issuance of building permits.

After all owning a home in the mountains is not a sustainable development. They want to build a Stalinist housing complex that is connected to mass transit. no need for cars, thats not sustainable. Our little community is a test project for this agenda, And I think it stinks.

I think I'm gonna follow Albert Einsteins example, split before they close our borders. They (the government) have been allowing the construction of private owned prisons, quite a growth industry. I wonder who they intend to populate these complexes with. If you want more info on this look up corpwatch.

Those who don't remember history are bound to repeat it. I hope I'm proven wrong in these fears. Truly I do.

"And I, for one, welcome our new insectoid overlords." :D

That seems a little apocalyptic to me, Bwaha :) Sen. Obama elected president 3 days ago, and already your community is part of a giant stalinist civilian-imprisoning secret conspiracy? :eek: Wow, that guy is fast :shock: I hope he solves the global warming with that speed too :re:

(Great that at least they're letting you denounce the conspiracy here on the board before the imprisonment ;) )

[Irishmafia2020]

As a side note, private prisons primarily benefit from draconian drug laws that were passed under the Reagan administration... the majority of inmates are minorities, and most of them are in for drug related crimes. Obama's election is probably bad news for the industry for several reasons. Also private prisons do not allow employee unions at their facilities. Quite honestly, while Democrats have the reputation for "big government" because of their pattern of social spending, they are more libertarian in their attitude towards throwing people in prison for minor crimes, and they are less likely than republicans to pass laws dictating the private behavior of people in their own bedrooms.
In the interest of full disclosure, I was a corrections officer at a private prison for two years.

[JimMorrison]

If you want to whats really going on, research UN agenda 21. I think you will be rather dismayed. Our local dear leaders have started implementing it here and our ability to rebuild on our own land is being held up by non-issuance of building permits.

"The full text of Agenda 21 was revealed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro on June 14, 1992, where 179 governments voted to adopt the programme. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference."

Looks like this must have been signed on behalf of the US - by Bush Sr.


"In 1997, the General Assembly of the UN held a special session to appraise five years of progress on the implementation of Agenda 21 (Rio +5). The Assembly recognized progress as 'uneven' and identified key trends including increasing globalization, widening inequalities in income and a continued deterioration of the global environment. A new General Assembly Resolution (S-19/2) promised further action."

How dare they oppose globalization, inequality, and deterioration of the global environment. Those Stalinist cads!

:re:

[Tifone]

If anyone is interested, as every time "socialism" is mentioned someone asks his wife for the pirchfork and the flaming torch, I found around this pretty interesting video about the famous Joe the (unlicensed) Plumber.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnK84mM5N-o

Looks like Republican party's hero has benefitted being on welfare 3 times, but suddenly he has horror of "spread the wealth" politics because now the things are going well for him and he doesn't apparently want to return the favour he received from society when in need, for less fortunate people.

Selfishness and opportunism brought to a whole new level.

[Bwaha]

I believe these plans are a long term program. It has gone thru 3 administrations without opposition or acknowledgment. Maybe what I'm seeing is purely a local situation. As I said, I hope I'm wrong. I hope that our new messiah, oops president will put a stop to this. :D


PS. I wonder if Obama will recind the Patiot Act, If he does I will take a deep breath and relax.:D

[MaxWilson]

I'm basically Republican at heart, but I do think Obama is somewhat more likely than McCain would have been to dismantle the (thoroughly-useless) TSA in favor of proactive HUMINT. And if the Republicans in Congress try to exploit that to further their careers they deserve another thumping.

-Max

[lch]

After all owning a home in the mountains is not a sustainable development. They want to build a Stalinist housing complex that is connected to mass transit. no need for cars, thats not sustainable. Our little community is a test project for this agenda, And I think it stinks.
Stalinism! :shock: And here I was always building mass transits like crazy in Civilization, thinking that all that they do was reduce pollution from population. Never did I imagine that they'd invite Stalinism through the door. BRB, I have to demolish a few buildings - traffic-choked streets sound far better than open communism, what was I thinking... :sick:

I think I'm gonna follow Albert Einsteins example, split before they close our borders. They (the government) have been allowing the construction of private owned prisons, quite a growth industry. I wonder who they intend to populate these complexes with. If you want more info on this look up corpwatch.
Hmm. Maybe those detainees from Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp and from those illegal CIA prisons that need a new home?

Those who don't remember history are bound to repeat it. I hope I'm proven wrong in these fears. Truly I do.
Nothing comes of history but history. Fear is the mind killer? :)

[Tifone]

In effect, the mass public transport thing seemed everything but evil to me too.

It's ages we know that efficient, fast, sure, eco-friendly mass transit can kill the pollution, greatly help the environment and raise the quality of life - sorry, employees of car factories, but we have to save our lungs, and mass transits require lots of employees anyway (hey, soon there will be the magnetic levitation bus - I mean, how cool would be to drive that one?? :) ).

You can make an argument about how terribly communist is to turn lots of "free market companies" jobs into state-owned companies ones, and that the American Dream is the freedom of one's own muscle car or monster truck or Canyonero (Simpson ref. of course :D )... but the truth is that we all fear what can happen in 100 years if we don't stop pollution and global warming now.

[llamabeast]

I think a fair few Americans actually don't fear what can happen in 100 years if we don't stop pollution and global warming now, because they don't believe in global warming. Apparently a mass conspiracy of scientists all over the world is a more likely/convenient explanation.

Edit: Obviously I understand this is a minority (or I hope so!), and that the same controversies exist to some extent in all countries, just rarely to the same extent.

[sum1lost]

I think a fair few Americans actually don't fear what can happen in 100 years if we don't stop pollution and global warming now, because they don't believe in global warming. Apparently a mass conspiracy of scientists all over the world is a more likely/convenient explanation.

Edit: Obviously I understand this is a minority (or I hope so!), and that the same controversies exist to some extent in all countries, just rarely to the same extent.

For a spotlight figure who believes that global warming is not man made, if real at all, you can look at Sarah Palin. Look at her VP debate with Joe biden.

[JimMorrison]

For a spotlight figure who believes that global warming is not man made, if real at all, you can look at Sarah Palin. Look at her VP debate with Joe biden.

She also apparently thought that Africa was a country, not an actual continent. >.>

[lch]

I'm pretty sure she knows that it is a continent. She just thought that they would be organized as the United States of Africa, or U.S.A. in short. Wait a minute... :confused:

[Gandalf Parker]

Republicans may be Ferrengi, but the Democrats Federation??? :rolleyes:
You think way too highly of the Democrats to know the details of what's going on in government.
You probably think too high of the Federation, is all. ;)


Which is odd, since they seem to be a highly Communist heirarchy..... < ducks >

Exactly. A future where money means nothing, everyone has a job, everyone has health care, etc etc etc. Sounds like a utopian communistic image of the democratic party extreme.

[Tichy]

But, to be fair, healthcare in the federation does just involve waving a little penlight looking thingy over the hurty bits while looking concerned.

[HoneyBadger]

Dammit Jim, she's a politician, not a cartographer!

...and all references are as one...

[Tifone]

Dammit Jim, she's a politician, not a cartographer!

...and all references are as one...

There was also a nice wisecrack about her around in Italy in the campaign days... :smirk:

"She's pro-war, anti-abortion, pro-creationism, pro-abstinence only education, pro-hunting, pro-guns, pro-drilling, pro-nuclear, anti-renewable energies, pro-death penalty.
Think of an horrible thing. She's in favour" :D

[licker]

*cough*berlusconi*cough*

;)

[Tifone]

Plz don't mention...
There's just nothing too bad you can say about this man and all his (proven) fascist/dishonest/liers/racist/mafiosi lackeys and friends, who brainwashed and govern my people.
I'm gonna emigrate as soon as I finish University, like the most of the young "brains" are doing. My country's a sinking boat.

If Obama really manages to make USA an even better place, someone prepare a room for me in four/five years please :D

[Tichy]

Maybe you could convince McCain's crew to become his new political advisors. I'm sure they're looking for work.

Totally win-win.

He'll get the same kind of scintillating advice they all gave McCain and lose, and we'll get to stop listening to them whine and try to scapegoat Palin for their mistakes. (Such as making Palin the VP-candidate.)

Of course this story ends with them all sharing a leaky dinghy in the middle of the Mediterranean.

[Tifone]

... pity in the mediterranean we have very few sharks :D

[chrispedersen]

Dammit Jim, she's a politician, not a cartographer!

...and all references are as one...

There was also a nice wisecrack about her around in Italy in the campaign days... :smirk:

"She's pro-war, anti-abortion, pro-creationism, pro-abstinence only education, pro-hunting, pro-guns, pro-drilling, pro-nuclear, anti-renewable energies, pro-death penalty.
Think of an horrible thing. She's in favour" :D


Sigh so many opinions.. so manythings to be wrong on. Not palin.
If you are concerned about global warming - you are foolish to throw away one of the brightest technologies, aka nuclear.

[lch]

If you are concerned about global warming - you are foolish to throw away one of the brightest technologies, aka nuclear.
At least that's something that I can agree on.

[Tifone]

1) The wisecrack is from an european-liberal point of view. As Aezeal already pointed out, we have very different issues than the US. For many EU nations, many of your issues (death penalty and creationism above the others) are totally non-issues, and an USA VP with those opinions on those issues is quite scary for many, known your influence on the world. Not that it would force anyone here to teach even creationism in science classes i.e. of course, but still...

2) We aren't as lucky as you to have big deserts and plains to stock the dangerous nuclear wastes. For us, having nuclear power stations would mean pretty much to build radioactive scrap-yards near towns and have the inhabitants get crazy on that, evenly. We already have some big problems for the few nuclear wastes we already have to dispose of... ehm, even on the normal ones to be fair. Also there is the big scar of Chernobyl still in many people's minds. That was a primitive unefficient power station of course, but tell that to whoever has seen the photos of the babies born in the surrounding areas even many years after...

[chrispedersen]

1) The wisecrack is from an european-liberal point of view. As Aezeal already pointed out, we have very different issues than the US. For many EU nations, many of your issues (death penalty and creationism above the others) are totally non-issues, and an USA VP with those opinions on those issues is quite scary for many, known your influence on the world. Not that it would force anyone here to teach even creationism in science classes i.e. of course, but still...

2) We aren't as lucky as you to have big deserts and plains to stock the dangerous nuclear wastes. For us, having nuclear power stations would mean pretty much to build radioactive scrap-yards near towns and have the inhabitants get crazy on that, evenly. We already have some big problems for the few nuclear wastes we already have to dispose of... ehm, even on the normal ones to be fair. Also there is the big scar of Chernobyl still in many people's minds. That was a primitive unefficient power station of course, but tell that to whoever has seen the photos of the babies born in the surrounding areas even many years after...

Ironic that you think so, as the country that generates the highest percentage of its power in the world from nuclear energy is france - at over 70%.

[licker]

Death penalty is a non issue in the US as well, not sure why most europeans seem to think its a big deal here.

Creationism is also completly overblown, only crops up now and again in fairly backwater areas.

Politicians are generally all idiots though, so its nominally easy to find something to criticise them on, even if it's a minor issue which would ultimately never matter.

What I don't understand is how politicians who are convicted of fraud or other crimes keep on getting reelected. People in this country are seriously stupid or blind if they continue to support people like Stevens (Alaska) or Jefferson (La).

[NTJedi]

Exactly. A future where money means nothing, everyone has a job, everyone has health care, etc etc etc. Sounds like a utopian communistic image of the democratic party extreme.

The Borg provides the same thing. The government runs everything. :)
Except they're pro-gun.

[Tifone]

The Borg provides the same thing. The government runs everything. :)
Except they're pro-gun.

So they're republicans. :fire:

And btw they're not pro-gun. They have inbuilt guns. How could they be against? That would be like you being against-your arm. :D (Not a trekker, I may be wrong)

Ironic that you think so, as the country that generates the highest percentage of its power in the world from nuclear energy is france - at over 70%.

Actually I was talking about my country on nuclear. But I wasn't clear enough I admit.
Even if looks like my government is now thinking about going for it.

[Gandalf Parker]

I would have no problem with implants. And as much as piercings have become popular, Im guessing that the general public wont have a problem with it either.

[vfb]

Which SF book had the original skull gun? The one implanted between your eyes, when you fire it then you get a massive headache? Cannot remember. I'm thinking maybe Neal Stephenson/William Gibson/David Brin/Phillip K Dick? This is bugging me. :(

[Ballbarian]

Neal Stephenson if I remember correctly.
"The Diamond Age"

[Lingchih]

I don't really think guns will be an issue, at least in this term. Obama has much more important things to deal with. I am actually the pro-gun democrat, a rare thing, since I agree with the Democratic party on all things except gun control.

[chrispedersen]

I don't really think guns will be an issue, at least in this term. Obama has much more important things to deal with. I am actually the pro-gun democrat, a rare thing, since I agree with the Democratic party on all things except gun control.

All things? Thats.. mind boggling.

Prevailing wage rules? Govt Contractors must pay union wages
to non workforce.
Restricted Card Balloting for unions? (ie, no secret ballots)
Protectionism?
Earmarks?
FAIRness Doctrine (shut down talk radio)
No drilling for oil
No use of nuclear fuel.

[capnq]

I think I'm gonna follow Albert Einsteins example, split before they close our borders.So many people say that they're going to leave the country if so-and-so is elected; I've never heard of anyone that followed through on it when so-and-so was elected.

The chief problem with leaving the country is, where would you go? Despite all of the USA's problems, I can't think of anyplace else in the world where I think I would be better off.

[llamabeast]

If you were leaving America because it had become too left-wing, I think you might have problems, because most places in the world are probably even more left wing.

If I were to emigrate (which I won't, because of family), I think Australia, New Zealand or Canada would all be good options.

[lch]

If I were to emigrate (which I won't, because of family), I think Australia, New Zealand or Canada would all be good options.
So basically the decision for you would be to choose between hunting kangaroos, sheep/kiwi or moose. :fire:

[NTJedi]

The Borg provides the same thing. The government runs everything. :)
Except they're pro-gun.

So they're republicans. :fire:

And btw they're not pro-gun. They have inbuilt guns. How could they be against? That would be like you being against-your arm. :D (Not a trekker, I may be wrong)



Republicans do not want the government running everything... hence "more government is not the answer." Considering all the problems in government today we should not be giving our government more money and responsibilities until its current responsibilities are fixed.

Everyone has inbuilt guns this is pro-gun to an extreme. Basically the Borg government decided to arm everyone with guns, and chose the arm as its location. As part of the Borg you don't have the option to be against this decision because the Borg government runs everything.

[JimMorrison]

Republicans do not want the government running everything... hence "more government is not the answer." Considering all the problems in government today we should not be giving our government more money and responsibilities until its current responsibilities are fixed.


Yet, Republicans consistently elect Presidents who increase spending at irresponsible, and unsustainable rates..... the irony is astounding.

[NTJedi]

Yet, Republicans consistently elect Presidents who increase spending at irresponsible, and unsustainable rates..... the irony is astounding.

Since the 90s republicans and democrats have BOTH been increasing taxes on the middle class, except Reagan who actually lowered taxes. There's plenty of charts showing who raised taxes and the democrats are not the 'pure good' which you believe.
The larger government grows the more it will need to raise taxes on its people and since the wealthy have loop holes the middle class people and middle class businesses will be suffering. The end result causes a smaller amount of middle class and a greater gap between the wealthy and the poor.

In any case the democrats now own the presidency, the majority of congress and the majority of governors... so let's see where we sit in 3 years.

[chrispedersen]

Republicans do not want the government running everything... hence "more government is not the answer." Considering all the problems in government today we should not be giving our government more money and responsibilities until its current responsibilities are fixed.


Yet, Republicans consistently elect Presidents who increase spending at irresponsible, and unsustainable rates..... the irony is astounding.

Jim,

Essentially, there is no way to fix our current problem.
If we elinated *every* government program, we still could not pay our current social security obligations. This is why when people release reports that say SS is broke, and WILL have to be fixed, this is what they mean.

On a somewhat different note..
I absolutely agree that the best of all possible worlds is spending less than our present taxes.

Deficit spending is not always a bad idea. This is why businesses take out loans - if you are going to make money on the transaction - its a good idea.

So for example deficit spending to fund the construction of the internet, or basic research - so long as their is a problable return is smart policy.

Deficit financing of consumption - ie., welfare, on the other hand is generally ridiculous.

[JimMorrison]

Yet, Republicans consistently elect Presidents who increase spending at irresponsible, and unsustainable rates..... the irony is astounding.

Since the 90s republicans and democrats have BOTH been increasing taxes on the middle class, except Reagan who actually lowered taxes. There's plenty of charts showing who raised taxes and the democrats are not the 'pure good' which you believe.
The larger government grows the more it will need to raise taxes on its people and since the wealthy have loop holes the middle class people and middle class businesses will be suffering. The end result causes a smaller amount of middle class and a greater gap between the wealthy and the poor.

In any case the democrats now own the presidency, the majority of congress and the majority of governors... so let's see where we sit in 3 years.


I absolutely, never said that Democrats are "pure good". That is the only absolute I will offer you, other than this one. ;)

However, statistically speaking, Republicans have consistently had greater rise in deficit spending, and in % of budget as deficit.

I don't care how much we get taxed, as long as there is something to show for it. But somehow Republicans manage to spend more, and do less. Explain that to me, please. I am sure you can, and I'm sure I'll disagree, but hey, evolution thrives on adversity.

[Agema]

I saw some stats collected from the Economic Report Of The President on the tax/spend trends of the two parties postwar. They suggest Republicans do indeed reduce taxes, but they don't actually reduce spending.

http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

This is another article that suggests from the raw data that the US economy not only has historically grown more under the Democrats, but but more equally too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[JimMorrison]

In fact, they -increase- spending.

Of course, there are some who would argue that increasing wages is not indicative of a growing economy..... though, they are the same people who claim that providing tax breaks to the rich bolsters the economy, and leads to higher wages. ;)

I think these figures are a bit misleading though. I'd venture to guess that under the Republicans, the top 5% does better than the NYT table shows, but through deregulation and tax loopholes, are more able to hide their income, during those administrations. :P Then when a Democrat takes office, they add some regulation back in, forcing the rich to declare more of their income.....


(Oh and Agema, apparently to Republicans, linking to Slate is something akin to how I might feel if they linked from O'Reilly..... Even if you are just trying to show them numbers that were compiled directly from the Economic Report to the President, complete with link to said document. ;))

[chrispedersen]

In fact, they -increase- spending.

Of course, there are some who would argue that increasing wages is not indicative of a growing economy..... though, they are the same people who claim that providing tax breaks to the rich bolsters the economy, and leads to higher wages. ;)

I think these figures are a bit misleading though. I'd venture to guess that under the Republicans, the top 5% does better than the NYT table shows, but through deregulation and tax loopholes, are more able to hide their income, during those administrations. :P Then when a Democrat takes office, they add some regulation back in, forcing the rich to declare more of their income.....


(Oh and Agema, apparently to Republicans, linking to Slate is something akin to how I might feel if they linked from O'Reilly..... Even if you are just trying to show them numbers that were compiled directly from the Economic Report to the President, complete with link to said document. ;))

These are the same canards floated the last time.
I don't actually dispute that over the period from 54 until the present that that statistics have favored the democrats.

I dispute they are factually relevent; to restate - I don't disbelieve figures on how the economies fared. I dispute that they are attributable to democrats or republicans.

Case in point- Clinton cut defense spending dramatically (the so called peace dividend). He cut it because the actions of Reagan led to the break up of the Soviet Union.

Again, the US economy performed well during the 50's as we had no significant opposition. This happened as a result of WWII - one can not statistically make any claim that was a result of the actions of the democrats.

Assume that there were 7 democratic and 5 republican administrations in 48 years. What are the chances if you flipped a coin that the democrats would get 3.5 heads and the republicans 2.5 (zero). So the odds are someone will get more heads - but getting more has nothing to do with being democrat or republican.

I don't say that there is no causal relationship - but I am saying it is nowhere near 1 - and probably much closer to .1. And that other factors are much larger.

[chrispedersen]

Oh and it turns out I was wrong. At least my local NPR claims that Martin Luther King was a republican.

[NTJedi]

In fact, they -increase- spending.

Of course, there are some who would argue that increasing wages is not indicative of a growing economy..... though, they are the same people who claim that providing tax breaks to the rich bolsters the economy, and leads to higher wages. ;)



Providing tax breaks to the rich won't bolster the economy or provide higher wages. Increasing minimum wage has not improved the lives of those working minimum wage as the rest of the market adjusts upwards as well... the $1 menu's from fast food restaurants have been disappearing as a result. Another bad side effect of increasing minimum wage is other businesses don't match the increase... thus if you're earning $6.25/HR and minimum wage is increased from $5.00 to $6.15 you're out of luck and closer to the poverty level.


I think these figures are a bit misleading though. I'd venture to guess that under the Republicans, the top 5% does better than the NYT table shows, but through deregulation and tax loopholes, are more able to hide their income, during those administrations. :P Then when a Democrat takes office, they add some regulation back in, forcing the rich to declare more of their income.....

Bill Gates found a way to pay zero in taxes for 1999 so those Democrats do a terrible job getting him and others at his level to pay taxes. If the Democrats were serious about improving the tax system they would attack the existing loopholes.

[HoneyBadger]

I would say-in my economic innocence-that the best way to attack poverty (it seems to me) would be to, yes, more heavily tax the very rich, but while attacking inflation, itself. That would cause everyone's money to be worth more, while reducing the gap between the very rich and the very poor. It *should*, I would think, also cause prices to drop, since the money itself would have more value.

[chrispedersen]

Honey, it is widely held that that *deflation* is a much greater risk right now.

There are lots of reasons, however if you deflate your money, you make it more difficult to service existing debt. This lends to market defaults -- such as the problem we are having now with the collapse of the housing market. Too many properties entering the market crushing the housing market.

Whereas if you *inflate* your money, you make it easier to pay off existing obligations.

[JimMorrison]

Providing tax breaks to the rich won't bolster the economy or provide higher wages. Increasing minimum wage has not improved the lives of those working minimum wage as the rest of the market adjusts upwards as well... the $1 menu's from fast food restaurants have been disappearing as a result. Another bad side effect of increasing minimum wage is other businesses don't match the increase... thus if you're earning $6.25/HR and minimum wage is increased from $5.00 to $6.15 you're out of luck and closer to the poverty level.


I'm pretty sure that you're well aware that the purchasing power of "minimum wage" has been eroding for decades now?

That is to say, that we are not keeping pace with the cost of living. Not only that, but as you point out, many middle-wage jobs don't even see the corresponding increase, thus we experience the phenomenon of a shrinking middle class, and more people at or below poverty level.

But poverty, is a mutable point. If I were to pay 100% taxes, but have a decent place to live, healthful food on my plate, and an ID card that let me into movies, and let me pick up a few luxuries here and there, why would I complain? People ultimately complain about taxes because of how little they see in return.

Our approach to taxation and spending is entirely backwards for this day and age - and the lack of serious accountability ruins our government's chances of success.

[JimMorrison]

Assume that there were 7 democratic and 5 republican administrations in 48 years. What are the chances if you flipped a coin that the democrats would get 3.5 heads and the republicans 2.5 (zero). So the odds are someone will get more heads - but getting more has nothing to do with being democrat or republican.


Well how about we don't assume that. How about we look at the report, and see that of the 50 years used for the article, 30 years had Republican Presidents, and 20 years had Democratic Presidents. Now, using your example, that means that by sheer chance, the Republicans had more chances to do better. Unfortunately this forces you to stand strong on your refusal to give creedence to isolated statistics, as obviously they had more chances to do poorly, as well. And, in most cases, they in did manage to do more poorly. Of course there were more factors involved, but one thing that makes a good President, is the ability to harmonize with those factors, to get a more effective whole. You can argue what could be, or what also maybe had relevance, but it doesn't change the fact - over the last 50 years, Democrats have had significantly, and fairly reliably more positive economic figures during their time in office. That is a simple fact, it's backed up by other facts, and it's hard to effectively argue against it without presenting facts that support your position.


I will again clarify, for those who like to skim - I am not a Democrat, nor do I implicitly support that party. However I do feel that the Republican party has gone so far beyond the line of good sense, that our country could be much better off. Since we have a very broken 2 party system, I have nothing to compare them to, but the Democratic party, which has become almost as bad in many ways, but is still statistically, and (to me anyways) ideologically superior.

I do wish we could manage something better than either.....

[Agema]

Providing tax breaks to the rich won't bolster the economy or provide higher wages. Increasing minimum wage has not improved the lives of those working minimum wage as the rest of the market adjusts upwards as well... the $1 menu's from fast food restaurants have been disappearing as a result. Another bad side effect of increasing minimum wage is other businesses don't match the increase... thus if you're earning $6.25/HR and minimum wage is increased from $5.00 to $6.15 you're out of luck and closer to the poverty level.


There's just no way on earth that paying the very poor another 20% is bad for them. Yes, technically it shifts the median wage upwards and statistically takes more people into poverty. But if another family goes from just above the poverty line to just below it because the extremely poor got a pay raise, it makes pretty much no difference to their household finances.

The market cannot shift that far up either. To counteract a minimum wage increase from $5.00-6.15 dollars would take inflation of 20% suddenly occurring. Bear in mind the rest of the population towards the middle class don't see pay rises when minimum wage is increased, so although wage rises are inflationary, the overall inflation is a tiny fraction of the wage increase for the minimum wage.

Also, when you say other businesses don't match the increase, I don't think you're right by the requirements of basic economics. Companies pay more because they need to attract better staff. When minimum wage goes up, if they want to keep attracting those better non-minimum wage staff they have to raise their wages. This will send ripples outwards increasing wages.

[Agema]

Sorry, part of that is wrong. Increase the minimum wage and whilst the mean income goes up, the median will not, so more people will not be put across the poverty line. Besides, I think I also slightly misinterpreted NTJedi's point, I think you were actually saying that people already above the new minimum wage become poorer because costs go up and their salary doesn't alter, although I don't agree that's the case for reasons stated above. Sorry about the double post, didn't have an edit entry option the previous.

[lch]

Bill Gates found a way to pay zero in taxes for 1999
Since I couldn't find any indication of this the first time I looked around, I did it again. It turns out that Microsoft paid zero federal taxes in 1999, although they had $12.3 billion U.S. income. That's because they found a loophole through international tax evasion.

[chrispedersen]

Providing tax breaks to the rich won't bolster the economy or provide higher wages. Increasing minimum wage has not improved the lives of those working minimum wage as the rest of the market adjusts upwards as well... the $1 menu's from fast food restaurants have been disappearing as a result. Another bad side effect of increasing minimum wage is other businesses don't match the increase... thus if you're earning $6.25/HR and minimum wage is increased from $5.00 to $6.15 you're out of luck and closer to the poverty level.


There's just no way on earth that paying the very poor another 20% is bad for them. Yes, technically it shifts the median wage upwards and statistically takes more people into poverty. But if another family goes from just above the poverty line to just below it because the extremely poor got a pay raise, it makes pretty much no difference to their household finances.

The market cannot shift that far up either. To counteract a minimum wage increase from $5.00-6.15 dollars would take inflation of 20% suddenly occurring. Bear in mind the rest of the population towards the middle class don't see pay rises when minimum wage is increased, so although wage rises are inflationary, the overall inflation is a tiny fraction of the wage increase for the minimum wage.

Also, when you say other businesses don't match the increase, I don't think you're right by the requirements of basic economics. Companies pay more because they need to attract better staff. When minimum wage goes up, if they want to keep attracting those better non-minimum wage staff they have to raise their wages. This will send ripples outwards increasing wages.

It also causes unemployment, as businesses evaluate costs vs production. One computer > 10 low paid accountants.

[chrispedersen]

Assume that there were 7 democratic and 5 republican administrations in 48 years. What are the chances if you flipped a coin that the democrats would get 3.5 heads and the republicans 2.5 (zero). So the odds are someone will get more heads - but getting more has nothing to do with being democrat or republican.


Well how about we don't assume that. How about we look at the report, and see that of the 50 years used for the article, 30 years had Republican Presidents, and 20 years had Democratic Presidents. Now, using your example, that means that by sheer chance, the Republicans had more chances to do better. Unfortunately this forces you to stand strong on your refusal to give creedence to isolated statistics, as obviously they had more chances to do poorly, as well.

I don't know if you are deliberately misunderstanding or not.

What I am saying is:

1. The sample size is *too* small to determine causality between performance and party.
2. Performance is greatly overshadowed by external factors such as the putative ending of the cold war.
3. The choice of 1954 as an ending point is arbitrary, and designed to make the democrats look good. Throw in the great depression years and the democrats look abysmal. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Any decision to chose an arbitrarily starting point (throwing out hundreds of years of data) you have to immediately infer that any legitimate reason has been tossed out the window.

Its like saying.. yes.. we are going to measure the mpg of this car - but only during the times its running *down* the mountain.


Since we have a very broken 2 party system..

For the sake of argument, what makes you think its broken? I think it is working as well as usual, and as well as intended, more or less.

[NTJedi]

There's just no way on earth that paying the very poor another 20% is bad for them. Yes, technically it shifts the median wage upwards and statistically takes more people into poverty. But if another family goes from just above the poverty line to just below it because the extremely poor got a pay raise, it makes pretty much no difference to their household finances.

It's not bad for the very poor it provides the very poor a short term benefit, but it's bad for the working class just above them. When minimum wage increases the vast majority of those small businesses either cut staff and make the remaining staff work harder or raise the prices for food/services provided.
The family above the poverty line which is pushed closer to minimum wage DOES suffer because of the adjustment businesses must make. When I was a teenager I worked in the fast food restaurant and recognized the owner had no choice except to raise prices every time minimum wage increased. One example is our grocery stores with employees earning minimum wage (not the cashiers)... as minimum wage increases the grocery stores balance the increase by raising food prices. There's plenty of articles describing the long term effects of raising minimum wage.



Also, when you say other businesses don't match the increase, I don't think you're right by the requirements of basic economics. Companies pay more because they need to attract better staff. When minimum wage goes up, if they want to keep attracting those better non-minimum wage staff they have to raise their wages. This will send ripples outwards increasing wages.
In the majority of cases these other businesses do not match the increase of minimum wage. I've never met anyone such as friend, relative, coworkers who reported receiving a raise because minimum wage increased... unless they were at minimum wage. Simply walk around and ask the employees at small businesses and you'll see. Also the more minimum wage increases the more companies will consider sending call center job overseas!

[Agema]

Erm... are you sure the Great Depression will make the Democrats look bad?

It started during a Republican presidency (Herbert Hoover) following a previous Republican incumbent, and the drop in US GDP is almost entirely in his stewardship. The US recovered under FDR (Democrat).

[JimMorrison]

What I am saying is:

1. The sample size is *too* small to determine causality between performance and party.
2. Performance is greatly overshadowed by external factors such as the putative ending of the cold war.
3. The choice of 1954 as an ending point is arbitrary, and designed to make the democrats look good. Throw in the great depression years and the democrats look abysmal. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

1) It's the only sample that we have. Post WW2 we see the plastic revolution, computers, television, etc etc. For so many reasons, the rest of history isn't even entirely relevant to the current situation, because life and the economy have both evolved tremendously, changing the dynamics of cash-flow forever.

2) Going back to your "chances of positive or negative events" argument, I can only state that given how many extenuating factors exist, the only thing that we can do, unless we can achieve full transparency from our government and our corporations, is assume that over time, the net effect of positive and negative factors upon the performance of the Presidency, has been roughly equal.

3) There is no "choice" of an ending date for the study, and it is not arbitrary. That year was chosen for one simple reason, it is the first year that all relevant factors was tracked by the Economic Report to the President. And as I postulated before, it's all that really matters to the here and now. 70 years ago for example, our economy was balanced around the concept of single income families. It was considered generally disreputable for a married woman to be working in America, rather than taking care of her children. The advent of so many of our modern trappings, and the rapid rise in apparent cost of living, has transformed our economy in ways that make historical dynamics inapplicable to the present state of the nation (and the world), thus invalidating data culled from another era. Otherwise, we must both bow to the assumption that Despotism is the superior form of government, as the greatest empires of all time, Alexander the Great's Greece, and Ghengis Khan's Mongolia, were essentially led by intensely charismatic and intelligent dictators. Ignoring that fact, is arbitrarily skewing results towards some sort of representative government, and thus ignoring the ability of a strong dictator to make a nation grow and flourish beyond expectations.


Since we have a very broken 2 party system..

For the sake of argument, what makes you think its broken? I think it is working as well as usual, and as well as intended, more or less.

Certainly not as intended. The type of conflict in Washington that was originally intended, has all but faded away. Our elected officials are no longer elected based upon their ability to debate, their ability to innovate, or their ability to help our government evolve. Our Federal Government was intended to change and grow over time, to meet the changing needs of the nation, and her people. But as politicians perfected spin, and their ability to manipulate people into voting for charisma, rather than for integrity and courage - as the focus was taken away from serious national concerns, and placed upon petty social issues - we failed ourselves, and our government failed us.

Both parties have failed us. Just, the Republican party has managed to fail us just a bit more.

[Bwaha]

WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may -- may not, I hope not -- but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

You see why there's such concern about where our country is going.

[lch]

You see why there's such concern about where our country is going.
Yeah, I'd be concerned about people like that in Congress, too.

Also, as has been mentioned earlier (Godwin's law), this guy just shot himself in the foot by Reductio ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum). And so did you.

[JimMorrison]

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

I think this concept of "Civil Service", and the concept of "security" were being lumped together. That is to say that if we had better foreign relations, and a more contented citizenry, that we would safer (read: more secure) from terrorist attacks, whether domestic or foreign in origin.


Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Oh how we love biased conjecture. What else does Broun believe? He's a member of the Committee on Homeland Security - so maybe he is just protecting himself, while whipping up anti-liberal sentiment?



"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

You see why there's such concern about where our country is going.

And so the threshold of Godwin's Law is breached.

No, I don't see why there is "such concern", not from this. I saw concern on a nearly daily basis, due to GW Bush's actions, inactions, and legislation. You let someone gut the 4th amendment, and then you run around screaming that someone else might infringe "a little" bit on another amendment, in your eyes?

All I see here is politically aimed propaganda and hysteria-mongering.

Let's all relive 2004 and run around chanting "9/11, terrorism, Bin Laden" for a few months, shall we? I'm sure that will be productive. Let's always measure people by what we can imagine to fear they are capable of, rather than what they are actually doing, or have done. We just got through 8 of the worst years of governance in this nation's history, and McCain looked to want to continue walking down that same path - at least give the alternative a chance to step into office and prove he can do even just a LITTLE BIT better than what we've been trained to accept.

[JimMorrison]

You see why there's such concern about where our country is going.
Yeah, I'd be concerned about people like that in Congress, too.

Also, as has been mentioned earlier (Godwin's law), this guy just shot himself in the foot by Reductio ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum). And so did you.


How dare you beat me to the post. I demand a duel, select your fish!

[Bwaha]

I don't think that Obama is hitler, I am very worried about our future. I think that we have to be watchful and informed. I try to get my information from many sources. Sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong. But at least I make an effort to stay informed. The parallels of where we are now is frightening similar to the hyperinflation of the mark. And the response is the same, Print more money. Create a national but separate "police" force. Wiki the Wiermar Republic.
I'm just scared that if we don't watch and restrain the government it will turn against us. Being informed is the one and only way to stop tyrants. I'm sorry if I offended you but I think we have to discuss the potental and guard against it.

[lch]

I don't think that Obama is hitler, I am very worried about our future. I think that we have to be watchful and informed. I try to get my information from many sources. Sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong. But at least I make an effort to stay informed. The parallels of where we are now is frightening similar to the hyperinflation of the mark. And the response is the same, Print more money. Create a national but separate "police" force. Wiki the Wiermar Republic.
It runs in parallel because there was a stock market crash, too. The things that are done to combat hyperinflation are the same. But what brought down the Weimar Republic was that the chancellor could abuse power too easily and subvert the system by emergency decrees, in times of war for example.

I'm just scared that if we don't watch and restrain the government it will turn against us. Being informed is the one and only way to stop tyrants. I'm sorry if I offended you but I think we have to discuss the potental and guard against it.
Where have you been seven years ago? :(

[thejeff]

Read the original speech. Not the wingnut's take on it. He's talking about expanding AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, programs like that. Not some new secret police force.
There's one line, that Broun quotes, that if you take it out of context and squint just the right way can hint at some security force. In context, he's talking about relying on diplomacy not just the military.

Sure watch the government, be informed, but at the same time don't latch on to the first paranoid conspiracy theory you find.

Aside: If you think Broun's credible, my favorite pet project of his is his personal crusade to make our fighting men and women safer by removing porn from military bases.

[JimMorrison]

Aside: If you think Broun's credible, my favorite pet project of his is his personal crusade to make our fighting men and women safer by removing porn from military bases.

Oh come on. Do you know how many studies have shown that chronic masturbation directly impedes a soldier's crisis response? No..... Well, none really, but you can imagine it if you already dislike porn, and the concept is presented to you!

[Gandalf Parker]

You see why there's such concern about where our country is going.
Yeah, I'd be concerned about people like that in Congress, too.

Also, as has been mentioned earlier (Godwin's law), this guy just shot himself in the foot by Reductio ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum). And so did you.
Cute. Godwins Law I knew of course. But thats the first time I remember seeing it put into logic rules as Reducto_ad_Hitlerium.

[Bwaha]

My fears are based on the Patriot Act. When you are charged under it you lose all your rights. They can lock you up and there is no appeal. No council. No Habeas Corpus. Yes I blame bush for this travesty. We need to rid ourselves of this law. It concentrates power and removes our right of redress. Look man, I'm not trying to tick you off, I'm trying to talk about a serous problem. Our civil liberties are being taken away. And as far as Obama is concerned, we should ask him to rid us of this law. We should petition congress as well.

[JimMorrison]

I agree 100%, Bwaha.

I do hope, that if Obama does something about this atrocious blight on American justice, that even the most hard-hearted of conservatives will start to see the possibilities that the future holds.....

Seriously, I have seen nothing that makes me think that Obama himself would abuse the "rights" given to the establishment through the Patriot Act. Would that I had remembered to reference it in the fascism sub-argument earlier.....

[Tifone]

Cute. Godwins Law I knew of course. But thats the first time I remember seeing it put into logic rules as Reducto_ad_Hitlerium.

It's actually a so called fallacy ;)
Still works among us lil' wannabe lawyers :D

[Tichy]

It's a circular argument form of a very rare type. It actually requires two arguers.

It goes approximately like this:

Arguer A: Your guy's a fascist!
Arguer B: No! Your guy's a fascist!
Repeat.

It is closely related to two other well known argumentative fallacies, the Argument from Say the Same thing Louder, and the Argument from I say X therefore X.

[JimMorrison]

Well apparently after GW Bush had the audacity and ill-sense to speak of Nazi appeasement while speaking to Isreal, Nazi/Hitler references are in vogue again.

[chrispedersen]

I don't think that Obama is hitler, I am very worried about our future. I think that we have to be watchful and informed. I try to get my information from many sources. Sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong. But at least I make an effort to stay informed. The parallels of where we are now is frightening similar to the hyperinflation of the mark. And the response is the same, Print more money. Create a national but separate "police" force. Wiki the Wiermar Republic.
It runs in parallel because there was a stock market crash, too. The things that are done to combat hyperinflation are the same. But what brought down the Weimar Republic was that the chancellor could abuse power too easily and subvert the system by emergency decrees, in times of war for example.

I'm just scared that if we don't watch and restrain the government it will turn against us. Being informed is the one and only way to stop tyrants. I'm sorry if I offended you but I think we have to discuss the potental and guard against it.
Where have you been seven years ago? :(


That is *far* too simplistic an argument on what down the Weimar republic. Massive unemployment, war debts, disaffected youth, hyperinflation, and a belief that the country had been betrayed.
Looking from the german perspective, at the time of the armistice it was not nearly so obvious that germany had lost - and so what was a smart move by the germans military .. turned against them politically as rabble rousers drummed up a distrust of the govt.

[Gregstrom]

Otherwise, we must both bow to the assumption that Despotism is the superior form of government, as the greatest empires of all time, Alexander the Great's Greece, and Ghengis Khan's Mongolia, were essentially led by intensely charismatic and intelligent dictators. Ignoring that fact, is arbitrarily skewing results towards some sort of representative government, and thus ignoring the ability of a strong dictator to make a nation grow and flourish beyond expectations.



Just to stir a little :), but I can think of two other greatest empires of all time: British (certainly covered the greatest area) and Roman (pretty impressive longevity and impact on western ways of thinking). Both ran a form of democracy (I wouldn't call them very representative democracies, though - OTOH, is a system where a 52%/48% split of the popular vote can equate to a 70%/30% college vote really that representative?), with a noticeable proportion of politicians who were corrupt or held extreme viewpoints. They had two-house systems of government, and rich and influential families kept on getting members elected to positions of political power on the basis of name and family influence for multiple generations.

I match you, and raise you one herring!

[JimMorrison]

That is *far* too simplistic an argument on what down the Weimar republic. Massive unemployment, war debts, disaffected youth, hyperinflation, and a belief that the country had been betrayed.
Looking from the german perspective, at the time of the armistice it was not nearly so obvious that germany had lost - and so what was a smart move by the germans military .. turned against them politically as rabble rousers drummed up a distrust of the govt.

For someone who argues for the validity of extraneous circumstances, it seems like there is an incredibly thin comparison between current United States, and Germany between WW1 and WW2. That said, -your- description of the problems that Germany was facing, does very much sound like the America that GW Bush has gifted us all with.

[lch]

But what brought down the Weimar Republic was that the chancellor could abuse power too easily and subvert the system by emergency decrees, in times of war for example.
That is *far* too simplistic an argument on what down the Weimar republic.
I won't get into lengths about it on an internet forum, but it's, distilled into one sentence, what managed to end the Weimar republic being a republic with multiple parties and turning it into a dictatorship. As to the why and how, the reasons, and the "dagger-thrust" legend and so on, I expect that people educate themselves about that elsewhere, but not on an internet forum.

[chrispedersen]

We just got through 8 of the worst years of governance in this nation's history, and McCain looked to want to continue walking down that same path - at least give the alternative a chance to step into office and prove he can do even just a LITTLE BIT better than what we've been trained to accept.

See,

This is the problem with politics. I felt the 8 years under clinton were *horrible*. A president *lied* under oath, before a court, and then his political allies said party is more important than principle and ensured he got away with it.

Clinton tomahawked sudan - knowing osama wasn't there, and ended up paying restitution just to sway the wavering and distract attention from the impeachment vote. And while you leftists decry that 'bush lied and people died'.. pretty much you ignore the same thing when Clinton did it.

But, I have no problem giving obama a chance - I think we all should. I do think his shutting down gitmo and granting terrorists the rights of us citizens is appauling. I really can't understate that enough. Keep a lawyer employed!

But my real objection was the statement 'the worst governance in our history'. I doubt it actually qualifies as that - I can think of plenty of other stellar examples.

But even if it does, I include democrats in that 'worst governance'. I consider much of this financial debacle to be democrat inspired - from running Fannie and freddie like a democratic piggy bank, to requiring banks to make a certain percentage of their loans be to non credit worthy customers..

I guess what I'm trying to say Jim, is we can continue in this endless cycle of recrimination, or we can tone the invective down, agree that we have problems, and try to solve them civilly.

[Tifone]

It's a circular argument form of a very rare type. It actually requires two arguers.

It goes approximately like this:

Arguer A: Your guy's a fascist!
Arguer B: No! Your guy's a fascist!
Repeat.


Actually, IMHO, it goes more this way:

A: My guy wants to help the poor and lower taxes! And he loves animals so much he became vegetarian!
B: Hey, you know who else lowered taxes? Hitler! And he was also vegetarian! Your guy's exactly like Hitler so! He's gonna put on a Nazist regime, kill the innocents etc. etc.

Totally illogical of course, but of great effect on the weak minds (Star Wars FTW) as every logical fallacy. :o

This one is often used currently against Atheists. I met and heard people saying that Nazism did what he did because Hitler was atheist :eek:
Of course "forgetting" the motto -Gott mit uns- and Hitler's famous speech "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."; the "German Reich Christian Church" he established in 1933 etc...

Not of course that one would say that he did his utterly evil actions because he was Christian or whatever, it would be crazy c'mon :re: But many today like to go anti-atheism going for "Stalin and Hitler were mass-murder tyrants because they didn't believe in God" :rolleyes: I'm not even atheist but you know, some things should really p*ss off any rational being.

Long OT, sorry ^^

[JimMorrison]

Just to stir a little :), but I can think of two other greatest empires of all time: British (certainly covered the greatest area) and Roman (pretty impressive longevity and impact on western ways of thinking). Both ran a form of democracy (I wouldn't call them very representative democracies, though - OTOH, is a system where a 52%/48% split of the popular vote can equate to a 70%/30% college vote really that representative?), with a noticeable proportion of politicians who were corrupt or held extreme viewpoints. They had two-house systems of government, and rich and influential families kept on getting members elected to positions of political power on the basis of name and family influence for multiple generations.

I match you, and raise you one herring!

Well, Rome was quite proud and wealthy, but the ultimate power was more of an Aristocracy than anything. They had a rather effective means of keeping public favor, by involving the plebes to a degree, essentially letting them deal with petty affairs, while the wealthy elite maintained their own agendas - funded by the state.

Great Britain is not really a good example though. The map that I saw that seemed unreasonably comprehensive - actually was. It seemed to simply highlight every piece of land that Britain ever "claimed". Bear in mind, there are miles of grey area between "claiming" something, and actually governing or administering to it. For example, Australia was largely a penal colony. Britain itself had little dealings with most of the landmass, but in absence of a powerful and organized governing body, they "claimed" the entirety. The irony here is that this did not even begin to occur until America established independence. That is to say, while the map shows most of North America, as well as Australia as being owned by Great Britain, Britain did not own both at the same time. I am not really looking to do a comprehensive search on the rest, but I would postulate that many of the regions of Africa that Britain "claimed", it also simply did so in the absence of any other "claimant" with world power, and they similarly did little with that claim other than show it on maps - for later of course, I'm sure. ;)


As to your point about how our system works - I totally agree. I will not balk at the implication that our political system is broken. I think we'd be in much better shape with 30 parties running, and candidates being victorious with 10% of the vote (though for President I would think 2 rounds of voting would be in order, the first narrowing to 3 candidates, then everyone voting again - something like that, not married to it).

Personally I believe that as far as the Senate goes, that on the state level many more representatives should be elected - but with a very meager salary, and little actual responsibilities. Their responsibility would be mainly to raise awareness in their particular district to the issues at hand, and to collect votes, which they would then forward on a 1:1 basis to the Federal level.

[Bwaha]

I was listening to NPR and they said our dear congress is planing on making the Patriot Act permanent. Please call your congress person and tell them your against this. Please don't let this slide. For your children if nothing else. If we don't stand together on this issue we will truly regret it.

[Tifone]

[...]granting terrorists the rights of us citizens is appauling. [...]

Yeah, you should turn down the right of an equal trial to whoever is accused of being a terrorist. And any other right you don't like.

Let me play with Godwin's Law too! :cool:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

[Martin Niemöller]

[thejeff]

Nobody is "granting terrorists the rights of us citizens."

Simply saying that the US government does not have the right to detain whoever it feels like for as long as it wants without even having to make a case to the judicial branch.

[Bwaha]

Thats what is happening right now to us, American citizens. Guys and Gals now is the time to speak out. Before we lose that right. Turn your radio to NPR, listen to the tragedy thats unfolding before us right now. Don't blow this, it could be the last gasp of our Republic. I'm not joking, I'm afraid.

[Gregstrom]

Well, Rome was quite proud and wealthy, but the ultimate power was more of an Aristocracy than anything. They had a rather effective means of keeping public favor, by involving the plebes to a degree, essentially letting them deal with petty affairs, while the wealthy elite maintained their own agendas - funded by the state.


I sort of hinted at that in my post. And IIRC a lot of the public favour bit was arranged by throwing circuses, providing food and having lots of public holidays. Elections were often bought through family wealth, or just won on the basis of family reputation.

It's not exactly as if various wealthy families in the States don't get more than their fair share of political power, after all. That's getting close to aristocracy if you ask me.


Great Britain is not really a good example though. The map that I saw that seemed unreasonably comprehensive - actually was. It seemed to simply highlight every piece of land that Britain ever "claimed". Bear in mind, there are miles of grey area between "claiming" something, and actually governing or administering to it.


Here's a (arbitrarily chosen) map from 1897, showing British territories at that point only. (http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/pinkbits1897.htm) Is that slightly clearer? As per most empires, governors and garrisons were appointed to claimed territories. Other local governmental and social structures were left mostly intact. It's what Alexander and Rome did, so you can hardly quibble on that point.


For example, Australia was largely a penal colony.


For the sake of being argumentative: At the point the map linked above was made, transportation had been discontinued for 45 years. Convict labour had ended 30 years previously. Australia was being mined for gold and opals (and other minerals), forested for hardwoods, and probably several other things I don't know about.


I am not really looking to do a comprehensive search on the rest, but I would postulate that many of the regions of Africa that Britain "claimed", it also simply did so in the absence of any other "claimant" with world power, and they similarly did little with that claim other than show it on maps - for later of course, I'm sure. ;)


How about gold and diamond mining, rare hardwoods and other natural resources? Africa was something of a feeding trough at the time, and European nations were all pushing for their share of it. There was hardly an absence of claimants for African land - it's very likely one of the reasons modern African governments don't like non-African nations interfering with their political problems. And of course, for an empire with a heavy reliance on sea trade and naval power there's a very good reason to keep hold of and use sea ports and islands. Britain had a strong tendency to go to war rather than lose territory, which is why their claims were taken seriously.

[chrispedersen]

Nobody is "granting terrorists the rights of us citizens."

Simply saying that the US government does not have the right to detain whoever it feels like for as long as it wants without even having to make a case to the judicial branch.

Actually, they are, that is the thrust of Obamas decision, at least as floated at trial balloon.

First, let me say that I am not in favor of indefinite detentions. However, giving enemy combattants lawyers, and flying them to the united states and trying them in court is - lunacy. In the same article it said 250 of these were waiting to be released - but their home countries wouldn't take them.

Now, we bring them into the US and what happens next - we give them resident alien status? That is sheer.. brilliance. Yep, take terrorists that demonstrate a willingness to blow themselves up, and bring them to the united states.

[chrispedersen]

Thats what is happening right now to us, American citizens. Guys and Gals now is the time to speak out. Before we lose that right. Turn your radio to NPR, listen to the tragedy thats unfolding before us right now. Don't blow this, it could be the last gasp of our Republic. I'm not joking, I'm afraid.

Just curious, there are ten sections to the Patriot act. What is the wording that you are opposed to in it? Can you quote any of it? Can you explain what it supplanted? Or is this just a blanket "I hate everything connected with Bush"?

[chrispedersen]

That is *far* too simplistic an argument on what down the Weimar republic. Massive unemployment, war debts, disaffected youth, hyperinflation, and a belief that the country had been betrayed.
Looking from the german perspective, at the time of the armistice it was not nearly so obvious that germany had lost - and so what was a smart move by the germans military .. turned against them politically as rabble rousers drummed up a distrust of the govt.

For someone who argues for the validity of extraneous circumstances, it seems like there is an incredibly thin comparison between current United States, and Germany between WW1 and WW2. That said, -your- description of the problems that Germany was facing, does very much sound like the America that GW Bush has gifted us all with.

Simply breathtaking.

You compare an america with unemployment of 6.7% or so with the weimar republic where it was north of 25% You compare a place with hyperinflation measuring in the thousands of percent to a country with 3%. You compare a place where they had lost a war and suffered 50,000 people dead in one battle (Verdun) to where we are winning a war and the deaths are less than 5,000.

And you really think the circumstances are similar? See I think this is part of the problem Jim. Partisanship to such an extreme level that one simply can't be objective.

The sun still rises. Mail is still being delivered. Farmers grow food. We stil have an amazing university system- we still have the ability to worship as we chose, to vote, to assemble. We still have the right of free speach. We still have the ability to get ahead in life if we work hard. And on top of that, there's Dominions.

Most of the people in the world would die to come here.

[sum1lost]

Nobody is "granting terrorists the rights of us citizens."

Simply saying that the US government does not have the right to detain whoever it feels like for as long as it wants without even having to make a case to the judicial branch.

Actually, they are, that is the thrust of Obamas decision, at least as floated at trial balloon.

First, let me say that I am not in favor of indefinite detentions. However, giving enemy combattants lawyers, and flying them to the united states and trying them in court is - lunacy. In the same article it said 250 of these were waiting to be released - but their home countries wouldn't take them.

Now, we bring them into the US and what happens next - we give them resident alien status? That is sheer.. brilliance. Yep, take terrorists that demonstrate a willingness to blow themselves up, and bring them to the united states.
You know, McCain was suggesting the exact same thing, oddly enough. You try them before deciding that they are terrorists, instead of jailing them.

[lch]

Maybe he remembers a thing or two from being a P.O.W.

[chrispedersen]

Nobody is "granting terrorists the rights of us citizens."

Simply saying that the US government does not have the right to detain whoever it feels like for as long as it wants without even having to make a case to the judicial branch.

Actually, they are, that is the thrust of Obamas decision, at least as floated at trial balloon.

First, let me say that I am not in favor of indefinite detentions. However, giving enemy combattants lawyers, and flying them to the united states and trying them in court is - lunacy. In the same article it said 250 of these were waiting to be released - but their home countries wouldn't take them.

Now, we bring them into the US and what happens next - we give them resident alien status? That is sheer.. brilliance. Yep, take terrorists that demonstrate a willingness to blow themselves up, and bring them to the united states.
You know, McCain was suggesting the exact same thing, oddly enough. You try them before deciding that they are terrorists, instead of jailing them.

As I said, I don't mind the idea of trying them. Flying them to the US and affording them the same protections of a US citizen is a huge expansion of judicial oversight, with not a shred of constitutional justification.

[thejeff]

What do you mean by "affording them the same protections of a US citizen"?

How does our criminal justice system distinguish between US citizens and foreigners? Are you suggesting a British citizen (for example) would have less protections in a US court if accused of a crime?

[chrispedersen]

Rights of a British citizen (consular access, jurisprudence etc) are covered under a whole host of agreements, treaties and laws that are already established.

An aide leaking that the Obama campaign *is going* to to shut down Gitmo. etc (as in original post) and making that determination in advance of choosing an attorney general, in advance of consulting with JCS, or your secretary of state, especially in the case of setting legal precedent is troubling.

Closing gitmo may *be* the best course of action. Bush tried to willy nilly establish a new set of rules; he was shot down - but just because Obama is making a diametrically opposite position doesn't mean it is the correct decision, and it doesn't mean it isn't a willy nilly decision. But I would rather have confidence that Obama has the participation of his team on this. I'd rather have the knowledge that the ramifications have been discovered - and on such a polarizing issue, I'd like him to explain the decision.

Some things require haste - the banking crisis. Somethings require deliberative speed.

[llamabeast]

America has built its self-image and place in the world on an assumption of having the moral high ground, of being a country with exceptional liberties. But in recent years it has been trying to do this while simultaneously committing astonishing human rights violations at Guantanamo. America would have no hesitation in condemning any other country guilty of the same things, and indeed the rest of the world has had no hesitation in condemning America. The damage to America's international reputation has been, in my opinion, enormous. It is hard to respect the morality of a country which tolerates such abuses. To be honest, even if you don't care a jot about human rights, it's worth putting considerable effort into fixing Guantanamo just for the foreign relations benefits it offers.

[Ylvali]

Well spoken llamabeast. But it is important to remember that Guantanamo is bit a small peice of a great puzzle. I am not convinced that "fixing" it makes much of a difference unless part of a massive program to abolish the practices it represents. Neither gitmo or Abu ghraib are unique in any way, they just happened to get exposed.

However, giving enemy combattants lawyers, and flying them to the united states and trying them in court is - lunacy.

Just like international law and human rights in general, right? You do know these rights are confirmed in several international agreements. But it sure seems like the american goverments have agreed with you so far, since those agreements have been sytematically violated for decades.

Furthermore since the trial is necessary to confirm the status of "enemy combattant" or "terrorist" your reasining falls because they are not (yet) confirmed as such when those rights are granted. Hence any rights cannot be denied for this reason until after trial.

I am not at all convinced Obama represents any real change on those issues, but I hope so.

[Humakty]

Yeah, Guantanamo is too much, they should have done as before : torture them on the spot. I mean, isn't it a sign of responsibility to admit you have concentration camps for people you don't like ?

Jokes put aside : there aren't hundreds of way to obtain info people won't give you.

[Agema]

I would say that the US, as inherited from Britain and the Magna Carta, is established on the Rule Of Law. The rule of law in America I believe also states quite unambiguously, as an essential premise, that all should be equal before the eyes of the law. It doesn't matter whether it's a foreign terrorist or a local pickpocket. I cannot say enough how much that is a principle America or any other civilised nation should be proud of, admired for, and right to uphold.

Currently, Guantanamo Bay humiliates the above principles. If you're American, you may have no idea how much it harms your national reputation in the eyes of the world. Bush, and therefore the US government, has caused the mess. If the next administration needs to make some unpalatable decisions to clear it up and restore the nation's honour, so be it.

[Humakty]

Guantanamo has this particular trait that it is officially admitted as existing by the government. That is unpreceded in american history. But I find it naive to think that, before it, american did not torture prisonners.

So lets say that, by closing Guantanamo, USA will restore their apparent honour.

[Tichy]

Cell-phone cameras have really done a number on plausible deniability.

[Humakty]

Arf,Arf ! What technology have done for you today ?

[chrispedersen]

America has built its self-image and place in the world on an assumption of having the moral high ground, of being a country with exceptional liberties. But in recent years it has been trying to do this while simultaneously committing astonishing human rights violations at Guantanamo. America would have no hesitation in condemning any other country guilty of the same things, and indeed the rest of the world has had no hesitation in condemning America. The damage to America's international reputation has been, in my opinion, enormous. It is hard to respect the morality of a country which tolerates such abuses. To be honest, even if you don't care a jot about human rights, it's worth putting considerable effort into fixing Guantanamo just for the foreign relations benefits it offers.

I agree with everything you said.

[chrispedersen]

Well spoken llamabeast. But it is important to remember that Guantanamo is bit a small peice of a great puzzle. I am not convinced that "fixing" it makes much of a difference unless part of a massive program to abolish the practices it represents. Neither gitmo or Abu ghraib are unique in any way, they just happened to get exposed.

However, giving enemy combattants lawyers, and flying them to the united states and trying them in court is - lunacy.

Just like international law and human rights in general, right? You do know these rights are confirmed in several international agreements. But it sure seems like the american goverments have agreed with you so far, since those agreements have been sytematically violated for decades.

Furthermore since the trial is necessary to confirm the status of "enemy combattant" or "terrorist" your reasining falls because they are not (yet) confirmed as such when those rights are granted. Hence any rights cannot be denied for this reason until after trial.

I am not at all convinced Obama represents any real change on those issues, but I hope so.


Really, a great deal of this is uncalled for.

First: No, you are factually incorrect on several fronts. There are no laws giving US citizen rights to enemy combattants.
The rights of enemy combattants and governed by things like the Geneva conventions, and other documents.

Second: No, it has never been historically necessary to have a trial to determine that someone was an enemy combattant. Nor has it ever been established that you fly them to the United States, determine that an American Court has jurisdiction (if so, which, praytell?) and grant process the same as an American citizen.

Third: I do agree that human rights issues need to be addressed.
I do think the situation needs to be fixed. However, they are issues because they are difficult.

For example, the Geneva conventions apply, when both sides of a conflict are signatories, or so long as the non signatory respects the conventions of the geneva accord. Now, Al-Qaeda has not respected said conventions. But in fact it is probably not realistic to expect any terrorist movement to respect such conventions. So what then *are* the standards? Everyone agrees there should be standards, but I don't know what they are - and more to the point - I don't know anyone who does.

Secondly, something like 40% of the detainees who were released were caught again in conflict with americans. So they as a class basis, they represent a threat to american servicemen.

Thirdly - if you are going to bring them to american courts - which court. How do you determine standing?

American courts give the defendent the ability to question his opponents. Are you going to allow enemy combattants to ability to make american soldiers appear in court - while they are involved in military action?

So lets suppose that some of these people are guilty. You've brought them to the US. Now you are going to send them to jails in the US? So you're going to take an extremist who want to blow up people - and you're going to jail them with people who might have an ax to grind. Fertile recruiting grounds, indeed.

And these are just problems off the top of my head.


For those that don't read my posts, but rather just jump in and pile on with criticism, I'll say it again: I'm in favor of fixing the problem. Hearing someone say they are going to close down gitmo - with a lack of other details - does not inspire me to believe that the problems (for there are several) will be considered, let alone fixed. It rather much appears as if you are pandering to public opinion rather than actually considering the issues. As I said in the ealier post, its a decision that should take the best minds. The AG, SoS, JCS, SoD - etc.

You announce that you want to convene at camp david to brain storm what to do about Gitmo - I'd applaud.

Announce that you want to draft legislation on what to do about non-signatory resistance movements - I'd applaud.

Just announce that you are going to close gitmo.. without announcing how you are going to solve these other issues - and I am way less than impressed.

[Humakty]

I think it is illusory to believe USA will rebuilt it's image of a pure country respecting morality. I even wonder who ever believed it in the first place : people come to live in the States for economical reasons, it dominated the world thanks to its economy. Not thanks to its supposed morality : minorities of white fanatics say oppenly on TV they burn black people when they can, and you call this morality ? Freedom to the point of absurdity is more like it. Normally, your freedom is supposed to stop were other people freedom starts... Not were you want it to stop, or not to stop.

[lch]

For example, the Geneva conventions apply, when both sides of a conflict are signatories, or so long as the non signatory respects the conventions of the geneva accord. Now, Al-Qaeda has not respected said conventions. But in fact it is probably not realistic to expect any terrorist movement to respect such conventions. So what then *are* the standards? Everyone agrees there should be standards, but I don't know what they are - and more to the point - I don't know anyone who does.
Something of an issue that I have with this paragraph, the Geneva conventions are being ratified by countries, not associations.
They cover how to treat prisoners of war, and other types of "combattants". The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants", a new term that was invented by the US government under Bush during the war on terrorism. The US-american courts are increasingly adopting a position that differs from the government on this.

[Agema]

Few would pretend the USA is whiter-than-white and hasn't done morally dubious things in its self-interest, nor that it doesn't have bad people in it. But by and large the USA as a nation has tried to stand up for or represented values the West finds attractive: lawfulness, democracy, human rights and many more. Particularly in comparison to other major powers like China or the old USSR, whose regimes have been repellent.

And yes, many people want to go to the USA for money. But I think you're underestimating how many people admire the USA for its respect for laws, individual rights and egalitarian society, even those in nations that view the USA as an enemy. Furthermore, people who believe in Enlightenment values want a nation that was founded on them and still espouses them to act on them.

[Humakty]

It seems to me the main value in USA is money, if you have none then the society will seem less egalist( you cannot afford a lawyer = less rights). There is also a surprising percentage of black people in prison, but I'm sure you have the right explanation ? Do you think they are more inclined to criminal acts ? Or are they refused a correct education/equal rights ? But maybe USA judges tend to condemn them more ?

The democracy can also be contested, as people doesn't directly vote for their president, but for people who promise they'll do the right choice, so if it is a democracy, it is highly indirect.

What history has learned to me is that you can be sure anyone reaching a position of domination will pretend being better in various domains, like morality and human rights in the present case.

Must I also say this country, where white people are a minority, has a surprising number of white people at interesting positions, but no doubt this is due to natural superiority of white people ? Or...?

I won't even discuss the organized exploitation of southern america people (the so called 'latinos'), it disgusts me too much.

All in all, I don't say USA is worse than the states that came before it to world domination (IE :french, england), but it tends to repeat the same stupid schemes, telling to who would listen them they are superior 'moraly', negating the fact they became what they are by following an opportunistic military strategy. And, in the particular case of USA, having clever leaders in terms of economical development.

I do agree with you that the constant propaganda we can see on TV, and in hollywood films tend to convince the most gullible that USA is a perfect place, where morality and freedom are always respected, were rivers of milk and honey flows, blablabla....

END SEQUENCE : everyone watches, a tear in the eye, an american flag floating in the air...

[llamabeast]

But I think you're underestimating how many people admire the USA for its respect for laws, individual rights and egalitarian society, even those in nations that view the USA as an enemy.

Regrettably, I think the USA has become markedly worse than many European countries with regard to all of these things. I would be happy to be corrected - I have no agenda on these things, but that's certainly the perception. With regard to individual rights, I would say that Guantanamo is a horror inconceivable by most Western European countries (I know less about the east, but believe the same is true for most Eastern European countries too). With regard to an egalitarian society, America is obviously notoriously bad, with its tendency to right-wing politics making its provision for the less fortunate far worse than in Europe. I believe in that respect the UK is intermediate between the US and much of the rest of Europe.

I think this is a pity. The US makes a far bigger deal about its history of freedom and equality than in Europe (here in the UK it is common to be deeply cynical about our country), while actually being not especially good at it.

[JimMorrison]

...Hearing someone say they are going to close down gitmo - with a lack of other details - does not inspire me to believe that the problems (for there are several) will be considered, let alone fixed. It rather much appears as if you are pandering to public opinion rather than actually considering the issues. As I said in the ealier post, its a decision that should take the best minds. The AG, SoS, JCS, SoD - etc.

This is so similar to the whole "we need to negotiate with Iran" problem. Politicians in general, but Republicans especially, seem to have taken a liking to protraying an -extreme- level of cautiousness. We are so critical of our Presidents, that now they either try to hide what they do, or in cases that they can't hide it, they are openly as slow and deliberate as possible, so that at least when they fail, they can say they "took proper measures" or at least "really thought about it a lot", and at least try to show that they didn't fail in some way due to impulsiveness.

However, this is now being turned into an illusory critical flaw in someone who is willing to stand up and announce that he will take action. So far, when confronted, Obama has stated that while he has made his goals clear, that it in no way implies that he is planning to behave irresponsibly. Until something outrageous happens (doubt it, but it could) along these lines, then I would suggest that every time Obama says that he will do something about something, that you read it as "I will figure out, with my advisers, how to deal with this issue, and then act". It is somehow vaguely ridiculous to think that someone as obviously intelligent as he is, could rise to such a high office, and then run around like an idiot, doing things with no thought of the repercussions. Besides, no one will be able to pull that off as well as GW did, and I think Obama knows that.


You announce that you want to convene at camp david to brain storm what to do about Gitmo - I'd applaud.

Announce that you want to draft legislation on what to do about non-signatory resistance movements - I'd applaud.

Just announce that you are going to close gitmo.. without announcing how you are going to solve these other issues - and I am way less than impressed.

See, this is silly. Someone saying they want to "talk about what to do", is not only acting like total wimp, but they are directly implying that if it's somehow deemed appropriate, that they'll let things continue rather than stopping them. All he has basically said is that one way or another, those things WILL stop. Obviously it is yet to be determined the most appropriate and effective means to do so, but stating that a certain result is the goal, in no way implies a lack of process.


Few would pretend the USA is whiter-than-white and hasn't done morally dubious things in its self-interest, nor that it doesn't have bad people in it. But by and large the USA as a nation has tried to stand up for or represented values the West finds attractive: lawfulness, democracy, human rights and many more. Particularly in comparison to other major powers like China or the old USSR, whose regimes have been repellent.

And yes, many people want to go to the USA for money. But I think you're underestimating how many people admire the USA for its respect for laws, individual rights and egalitarian society, even those in nations that view the USA as an enemy. Furthermore, people who believe in Enlightenment values want a nation that was founded on them and still espouses them to act on them.

We were supposed to be the good guys. Maybe not saintly, as a nation, but "good". So if humanity were graded on a curve, we took pride in, and the rest of the world seemed to praise us for, being on the "right" side of that curve somewhere.

Perhaps we are where we are because of our economy, but it cannot be discounted that our diplomatic position has long been seen as very strong, and that our economy has only been bolstered by our ability to negotiate favorable agreements around the world. Thus it is incredibly ironic, and a bit telling, that during 8 years of diplomatic strength our economy did better than most Republicans want to give anyone credit for, and then during 8 years of diplomatic disappointment, our economy slides into a terrible slump (a trillion dollars for a ridiculous war might have something to do with it, too.....). Of course, we can always blame Clinton, he got a couple blowjobs in office and didn't want to tell anyone, so he must have seriously sabotaged our economy beyond what any man as brilliant as GW Bush could have possibly fixed.....

[chrispedersen]

For example, the Geneva conventions apply, when both sides of a conflict are signatories, or so long as the non signatory respects the conventions of the geneva accord. Now, Al-Qaeda has not respected said conventions. But in fact it is probably not realistic to expect any terrorist movement to respect such conventions. So what then *are* the standards? Everyone agrees there should be standards, but I don't know what they are - and more to the point - I don't know anyone who does.
Something of an issue that I have with this paragraph, the Geneva conventions are being ratified by countries, not associations.
They cover how to treat prisoners of war, and other types of "combattants". The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants", a new term that was invented by the US government under Bush during the war on terrorism. The US-american courts are increasingly adopting a position that differs from the government on this.

Factually not true. Combattants as you say, are covered so long as they *always* wear something that visually identifies them as member of a militia or resistance group.

Part of the hallmark of a guerilla or terrorist group is the need to slip into the civilian population. Hence, why I said it was unlikely that Al-Qaeda or similar would be, or could be expected to, follow the convention.

This is just one of multiple complex reasons.

Hence it is incorrect to say that the United States violated the Geneva convention.

Go read Title III of the Geneva conventions to see what I mean.
I for one would argue that there should be standards. However, there are none as I know them now, and hard to imagine the process by which they would be developped. Russia in Georgia, China in Tibet, Myanmar in general, Israel in Palestine, Spain with the Basques - each of these countries would have different national goals and perspectives - and developing an accord would be difficult.

[lch]

Something of an issue that I have with this paragraph, the Geneva conventions are being ratified by countries, not associations.
They cover how to treat prisoners of war, and other types of "combattants". The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants", a new term that was invented by the US government under Bush during the war on terrorism. The US-american courts are increasingly adopting a position that differs from the government on this.

Factually not true. Combattants as you say, are covered so long as they *always* wear something that visually identifies them as member of a militia or resistance group.
Doesn't conflict with what I said. Yes, that's the case. My main beef with your paragraph was that you said something which made it sound like Al-Quaeda had to ratify the Geneva conventions in order to benefit from it.

The rest what I wrote is true as well. And IMHO it's a good thing that the courts allow themselves to deviate from the government line if they consider it unlawful. :up: for that.

[Humakty]

It is a well known fact : when you don't wear a bright red and blue shirt so that USA fighter-bombers can shoot at you freely, you're a terrorist, and deserve to be tortured till death. (and beyond...)

[Tichy]

We can argue all day about what we are bound to do according to notoriously flimsy precedents of international laws of war. What's more important is the question of what we *ought* to do.

We may be able to legally wrangle our way out of adhering to the international standards that other civilized nations adhere to, on the basis that our enemy is not acting as a civilized nation. And it's also clear that people who like to argue this way usually have the UN-bashing conservative's contempt for the very idea of international law.

But no legal argument, or ideological rejection of international law, changes the fact that acting the way we've been acting is *morally* shameful, and leads to justifiable suspicion about our motives and methods.

Even if the moral argument doesn't sway you, the tactical advantages of having the perceived moral high ground should. We did a lot better on the ground when enemy soldiers perceived surrendering to U.S. troops as a ticket to a safe place to sleep, a meal and not-getting-shot-at, instead of a bag over the head and a one-way trip to the inquisition.

[Ylvali]

Really, a great deal of this is uncalled for.

First: No, you are factually incorrect on several fronts. There are no laws giving US citizen rights to enemy combattants.
The rights of enemy combattants and governed by things like the Geneva conventions, and other documents.You misunderstand me a bit here. I meant that the right to a fair trial is granted by the declaration of human rights. I agree that this might differ from the rights of a US citizen, but it does include similar aspects. Like having a lawyer defending you etc...

Second: No, it has never been historically necessary to have a trial to determine that someone was an enemy combattant. Nor has it ever been established that you fly them to the United States, determine that an American Court has jurisdiction (if so, which, praytell?) and grant process the same as an American citizen.Perhaps not. But I am talking about terrorist suspects here. The habit of calling those "enemy combattants" is very questionable. They are suspected criminals, and just like other crimes you need a trial to confirm or discard that suspicion. The problem is not whether to try them in the US or somewhere else, but to ensure that the right to fair trial is granted. It weren´t for those detained at gitmo. And it still isn´t to those detained in less famous prison camps around the world.

Third: I do agree that human rights issues need to be addressed.
I do think the situation needs to be fixed. However, they are issues because they are difficult.

For example, the Geneva conventions apply, when both sides of a conflict are signatories, or so long as the non signatory respects the conventions of the geneva accord. Now, Al-Qaeda has not respected said conventions. But in fact it is probably not realistic to expect any terrorist movement to respect such conventions. So what then *are* the standards? Everyone agrees there should be standards, but I don't know what they are - and more to the point - I don't know anyone who does.You could start by granting them basic human rights. That is a resonable minimum standard don´t you think? Including for example the right not to be tortured or detained without trial:

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

IMO these standards would suffice, if they were actually used. No need to argue about "enemy combattant" or not, as these rights apply to everyone.


Secondly, something like 40% of the detainees who were released were caught again in conflict with americans. So they as a class basis, they represent a threat to american servicemen.Um, ok. I don´t see what you want to prove, argue for or imply with this.

Thirdly - if you are going to bring them to american courts - which court. How do you determine standing?

American courts give the defendent the ability to question his opponents. Are you going to allow enemy combattants to ability to make american soldiers appear in court - while they are involved in military action?

So lets suppose that some of these people are guilty. You've brought them to the US. Now you are going to send them to jails in the US? So you're going to take an extremist who want to blow up people - and you're going to jail them with people who might have an ax to grind. Fertile recruiting grounds, indeed. Well, I agree that american courts (or jails) are not optimal for these cases. A more secure system of international courts tied to the UN might be preferable. I know I´d prefer to be tried in such a court over an american one that might be biased against me.

...Just announce that you are going to close gitmo.. without announcing how you are going to solve these other issues - and I am way less than impressed.I agree with this. It looks like it is mostly for show. My bet is that torture and summary detainment will remain one of the standard tactics for repressive systems around the world. Gitmo or not.

[lch]

Well, I agree that american courts (or jails) are not optimal for these cases. A more secure system of international courts tied to the UN might be preferable. I know I´d prefer to be tried in such a court over an american one that might be biased against me.
You may not be aware how little appreciation a lot of US Americans have for the UN. The plan sounds good, but it won't find many friends in the US.

[chrispedersen]

Something of an issue that I have with this paragraph, the Geneva conventions are being ratified by countries, not associations.
They cover how to treat prisoners of war, and other types of "combattants". The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants", a new term that was invented by the US government under Bush during the war on terrorism. The US-american courts are increasingly adopting a position that differs from the government on this.

Factually not true. Combattants as you say, are covered so long as they *always* wear something that visually identifies them as member of a militia or resistance group.
Doesn't conflict with what I said. Yes, that's the case. My main beef with your paragraph was that you said something which made it sound like Al-Quaeda had to ratify the Geneva conventions in order to benefit from it.

The rest what I wrote is true as well. And IMHO it's a good thing that the courts allow themselves to deviate from the government line if they consider it unlawful. :up: for that.

We are mostly in accord. What I disagreed with in your paragraph was your statement 'The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants'

The US didn't deny them these kinds of coverages,
they never applied for multiple reasons alluded to before.

[licker]

You may not be aware how little appreciation a lot of US Americans have for the UN. The plan sounds good, but it won't find many friends in the US.

Chuckle...

You spend much time in south carolina lch?

[chrispedersen]

We can argue all day about what we are bound to do according to notoriously flimsy precedents of international laws of war. What's more important is the question of what we *ought* to do.

We may be able to legally wrangle our way out of adhering to the international standards that other civilized nations adhere to, on the basis that our enemy is not acting as a civilized nation. And it's also clear that people who like to argue this way usually have the UN-bashing conservative's contempt for the very idea of international law.

But no legal argument, or ideological rejection of international law, changes the fact that acting the way we've been acting is *morally* shameful, and leads to justifiable suspicion about our motives and methods.

Even if the moral argument doesn't sway you, the tactical advantages of having the perceived moral high ground should. We did a lot better on the ground when enemy soldiers perceived surrendering to U.S. troops as a ticket to a safe place to sleep, a meal and not-getting-shot-at, instead of a bag over the head and a one-way trip to the inquisition.

Ignoring that you apparently think I'm in favor of a moral low ground,


What you say is *exactly* the problem Tichy.

What do you think we *ought* to do?

Give me a problem free solution.

Let me shoot at *your* solution for awhile, and accuse you of unspeakable acts with animals.

[Tichy]

Well, now that I know I'm exactly the problem, that clears everything up. What exactly is exactly the problem that I am? Is it the suggestion that we conduct war and foreign policy with an ethical thought or two and not just legal hair-splitting to wiggle our way around conduct befitting a civilized society? If that's exactly the problem, then color me exact.

Animals? I've got no idea what you're saying.

I think it's pretty clear what I think we ought to be doing...adhereing to the Geneva conventions even if our enemies don't. Not trying to wiggle our way into justifying interminable extra-judicial detention and torture through hair-splitting arguments. Who's claiming to offer a "problem free solution"? Maybe a "not-ethically-damning suggestion."

Animals?

[Boronx]

Bush's illegal operations in his War on Terror will lead to the eventual dismantling of almost everything he has done, including compromising any cases to be made against terrorists.

Efforts against international terrorist need to based on a legal frame work. If current laws are inadequate, the hard work needed to improve it must be part of the anti-terrorism process. Such an effort would last far beyond the administration that pursued it and would have the US courts aligned with it instead of against it. A law based reaction would have de-legitimize terrorism as a pollitical tool where Bush's reaction to terrorism (torture, illegal invasions) has legitimized it.

Within the current system of laws: If a prisoner is a fighter, he should be held as a POW with full red cross access, without torture. The kid held at Gitmo because he threw a grenade at American troops should instead just be a regular POW.

POWs should be held until the Taliban surrenders and Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan are all wiped out.

If someone is a suspected terrorist, a case should be made and they should be tried in federal court. If acquitted, they should be returned to their own country or to a POW camp as appropriate. If, like Uighurs from China, they are acquitted and they are not POWS, but their home country would kill them or torture them, they should be released in the US through normal political asylum procedures.

[chrispedersen]

But I think you're underestimating how many people admire the USA for its respect for laws, individual rights and egalitarian society, even those in nations that view the USA as an enemy.

Regrettably, I think the USA has become markedly worse than many European countries with regard to all of these things. I would be happy to be corrected - I have no agenda on these things, but that's certainly the perception. With regard to individual rights, I would say that Guantanamo is a horror inconceivable by most Western European countries (I know less about the east, but believe the same is true for most Eastern European countries too). With regard to an egalitarian society, America is obviously notoriously bad, with its tendency to right-wing politics making its provision for the less fortunate far worse than in Europe. I believe in that respect the UK is intermediate between the US and much of the rest of Europe.

I think this is a pity. The US makes a far bigger deal about its history of freedom and equality than in Europe (here in the UK it is common to be deeply cynical about our country), while actually being not especially good at it.

So many things I disagree with.

Your own country just extended the amount of time a terror suspect may be held without requiring the surpervision of the courts, or charges. Doubled it didn't it?

Eastern Europe has well documented, state sanctioned secret prisons. Countries such as poland, rumania, italy. Where individuals of state interest were (are) held without court ccess or supervision.

Many here have talked about the holding of terror suspects at Gitmo. The term terror suspect presupposes what is at contention is a criminal trial, which is not correct.

Suppose for a moment that unmarked combattants set a bomb in a house and engaged in a firefight with US troops. In other wars they would have been deemed Prisoners of War - and held for the duration of the war. What exactly would you have the US do - release them to fight again?

Give me an example of Britain releasing all the German POWs. Or Russia.

As for the moral superiority of Western Europe - you're talking about nations such as Germany and France that made sub rosa agreements with the Red Brigades (and other terrorist organizations) that so long as terrorist incidents did not occur on French or German soil, brigadists were allowed free transit.

You're talking about a french system where guilt is presumed until proven innocent - and a French regime that allowed abuses of the Oil for Food program so long as the received below market rates on iraqi oil.

Gitmo is a horror inconceivable to Western Europeans is it? Last I checked western europe included germany which slaughtred millions of Jews, catholics, intellectuals and others in its Nazi death camps.

So spare me the moral superiourity.

As for being notoriously bad for an egalitarian society.. that could prompt an essay by itself. I'll content myself with two comments.

Liberte, egalite, fraternite are the french ideals, not American ones. America has never pretended otherwise. What America has always held is that if you work hard, keep your nose clean and invent a better widget - then you too can become filthy rich.

Lastly, if America were so notoriously bad - exactly why is it that we have 10 million people a year more or less sneaking there ways across our borders, or overstaying their visas. On top of millions more applyig for visas and green cards.

Ok. I lied. This is the last: 'I think this is a pity. The US makes a far bigger deal about its history of freedom and equality than in Europe, while actually being not especially good at it.'

We just elected a black man, raised at least part of the time in a single family President of the United States.

Let me know when you do the same in Britain, or France.

[chrispedersen]

I agree with a lot you say here.
Bush's illegal operations in his War on Terror will lead to the eventual dismantling of almost everything he has done, including compromising any cases to be made against terrorists. Don't agree much about this paragraph, interested in what mean by 'illegal operations'

Efforts against international terrorist need to based on a legal frame work. If current laws are inadequate, the hard work needed to improve it must be part of the anti-terrorism process. Such an effort would last far beyond the administration that pursued it and would have the US courts aligned with it instead of against it. A law based reaction would have de-legitimize terrorism as a pollitical tool where Bush's reaction to terrorism (torture, illegal invasions) has legitimized it.

Completely agree.



Within the current system of laws: If a prisoner is a fighter, he should be held as a POW with full red cross access, without torture. The kid held at Gitmo because he threw a grenade at American troops should instead just be a regular POW.


Why instead? By which I mean to say, why do you think he is something other than a regular POW at Gitmo?

POWs should be held until the Taliban surrenders and Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan are all wiped out.

I agree; I might even be more liberal than you. I would be inclined to release them into the custody of a functioning state - if that state could demonstrate it had control of its territory; respected basic human rights; perhaps had an amnesty program for its fighters.

If someone is a suspected terrorist, a case should be made and they should be tried in federal court. If acquitted, they should be returned to their own country or to a POW camp as appropriate. If, like Uighurs from China, they are acquitted and they are not POWS, but their home country would kill them or torture them, they should be released in the US through normal political asylum procedures.

Federal courts as constituted don't have jurisdiction - this is one of the many reasons why the Nuremberg trials were convened for WWII.

Letting terrorists jump the queue for asylum in the US is a bad idea. And again, the US has more than 250 such individuals approved for release - but no country wishes to *take* them.

[thejeff]

Liberte, egalite, fraternite are the french ideals, not American ones. America has never pretended otherwise. What America has always held is that if you work hard, keep your nose clean and invent a better widget - then you too can become filthy rich.


What happened to "with liberty and justice for all"?
Not relevant, I guess. It's all about making money.


Guess I should move to France, then.

[chrispedersen]

Liberte, egalite, fraternite are the french ideals, not American ones. America has never pretended otherwise. What America has always held is that if you work hard, keep your nose clean and invent a better widget - then you too can become filthy rich.


What happened to "with liberty and justice for all"?
Not relevant, I guess. It's all about making money.


Guess I should move to France, then.

I was speaking about Egalite - or egalitarianism from llamas post. But I agree it wasn't clear. I almost put 'we are the 'land of opportunity' not the land of 'egalitarianism''

[Tichy]

As best I remember, the "egalité" slogan indicates equal rights before the law, not economic equality.

I guess it depends on how deeply the Rousseauan economic critique in the Discourse on Inequality influenced them. I've always thought that On the Social Contract was the influential text there, which, unlike Locke, doesn't enshrine an individual right to private property as inviolate, but doesn't end up with the redistributionism you might expect from the Discourse.

[Gregstrom]

Your own country just extended the amount of time a terror suspect may be held without requiring the surpervision of the courts, or charges. Doubled it didn't it?


No, and no. Check your facts.

[llamabeast]

Your own country just extended the amount of time a terror suspect may be held without requiring the surpervision of the courts, or charges. Doubled it didn't it?

They tried to extend it from 28 to 42 days, and failed dramatically, causing the government enormous problems in the process. Quite a contrast from holding people without trial for several years. I think really that underlines my point very effectively.

Also, bringing up the nazis is hardly fair. That is very much in the past and their behaviour is universally reviled, most especially in Germany.

Is guilt really assumed until proven innocent in France? That sounds very unlikely, but I confess I know nothing about it.

For the 10 million people a year trying to get into America - I'm not saying it's not a good place. Obviously it is, and Americans are lucky to live there, much as I consider myself very lucky to live in England. In recent history, America and Western Europe have been the richest places in the world, and so obviously people want to move in. And America obviously has many strengths. Just not necessarily those that it believes it has.

We just elected a black man, raised at least part of the time in a single family President of the United States.

Yes, that is extraordinary, and deserves enormous respect. Which, indeed, America is receiving from all over the world. I'm much more pro-America than I was a year ago.

[Alneyan]

As best I remember, the "egalité" slogan indicates equal rights before the law, not economic equality.

What precisely is meant by 'equality' has been the subject of some dispute, actually... still, most people even at the time of the revolution used 'equality' to mean 'equality before the law', as per the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen in 1793, which includes an article that says pretty much that.

By the way, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité only became the 'official' motto written all over the place a century after the revolution. Quite a few other mottos popped up during the revolution, but they didn't stand the test of time (some included Propriety, incidentally).

[Tifone]

From when Italy is in Eastern Europe? Damn, they moved my country around when I was sleeping? :confused:

Would also like to know where people in my country are currently held for indefinite time. I'll say it tomorrow to my law professors in the university so we go and legally assist them.

(Also, playing again with Godwin? :smirk:)

[Sombre]

We just elected a black man, raised at least part of the time in a single family President of the United States.

Who is also a white man, who spent more money than the other guy, who himself was burdened with the legacy of an extremely unpopular president and a frightening VP.

[thejeff]

Is guilt really assumed until proven innocent in France? That sounds very unlikely, but I confess I know nothing about it.


It is often said. It is not true. The French criminal codes asserts the presumption of innocence.
The popular criticism comes from an unfair comparison of two different legal approaches. France (and much of the continent?) uses an inquisitorial system, as opposed to the adversarial system used in Britain and the US.

And I'm nowhere near enough of an expert to go further than that.

[sum1lost]

We just elected a black man, raised at least part of the time in a single family President of the United States.

Who is also a white man, who spent more money than the other guy, who himself was burdened with the legacy of an extremely unpopular president and a frightening VP.

He identifies as black, because the prevailing racial attitude in the majority of america classifies people of white+something else as simply something else.

[chrispedersen]

Llama, your post continue to bother me far after I had logged off.

So, I did some thinking:

League of Nations.
United Nations
Nato
Breton Woods
World Bank
IMF
GATT
the Internet
the Marshall Plan
the Outer Space treaty (non militarization)
the Red Cross
Kosovo

And I could continue with quite a few more. These were all instituted either by American lead or with significant american participation.

And I think they showcase American idealism. Frankly, I think they stand as markedly superior to the examples set by Europe or Britain. Very rarely I think has any state been more generous in promoting the general welfare - or promoting institutions which might circumscribe its own power.

The idea that there should be a forum for countries to get together and discuss matters. America, following the example of our European forbears could have claimed the moon - but *did not*. The outright gift of billions of dollars in aid in Europe.

Consider the treaty of Versailles - Wilson had tried to insist upon a 'peace without victory' provision - it was *europe* that insisted on ruinous reparations. Considers Russias rush to claim the under ice seabed.

Perhaps I *am* being parochial llama. America was a world player oh probably since WWI - Call it 100 years. Show me a similiar pattern of disinterested generosity by the British over 100 years.

[quote]Also, bringing up the nazis is hardly fair. That is very much in the past and their behaviour is universally reviled, most especially in Germany.

it was you who said "I would say that Guantanamo is a horror inconceivable by most Western European countries".

Inconceivable is it when it occured in the lifetimes of many people still living?

Inconceivable when the East German secret police were some of the most feared and abusive secret police 30 years ago killing *thousands* of people - including people that whose only crime was trying to flee to a better land.

Italy gave us Fascism - and Yugoslavia's Tito murdered gypsies.

And in fact there were noted secret police in Rumania, Bulgaria and albania even later.

To roughly quote the Princess Bride.. are you sure that word means what you think it means?

Is guilt really assumed until proven innocent in France? That sounds very unlikely, but I confess I know nothing about it.

There are two primary standards for justice in western civilization. One based on the Anglo-American model and one based on the Roman model.

Serious crimes in the Roman model feature a remand (incarceration) until proven innocent - and it led to an inquisitorial style of court used in France and elsewhere.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yjGwO0J7gWIC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=guilty+until+proven+innocent+french+jurispruden ce&source=web&ots=_mjOrktk9h&sig=a4DT-Z-67ArxACNBM_S3YLjDZMY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code

[atul]

Both of your linked sources discuss the situation in the 19th century. At the same time the Anglo-American system you praise didn't deem it necessary to provide a legal adviser to the defendant (read the wikipedia article). And last time I checked, it's 21st century now.

Innocent until proven guilty is de facto standard in civilized countries, and that puts the U.S. "war on terror" in such a bad light.

[llamabeast]

Llama, your post continue to bother me far after I had logged off.

Well, I feel I should say sorry for that then. I'm recently fairly interested in politics (since the lead-up to the American election really), but I will admit to being dramatically ignorant, so I wouldn't want my opinions to upset anyone. My thoughts are more postulates than strongly held beliefs.

Although I still disagree with a fair bit of what you say, and think you do strange things with facts at times (e.g. the internet having been kindly set up by America? it was invented by a guy from my college in fact) it is very interesting to hear your point of view and I think you make some good points. I think if I was more knowledgeable I could come up with a similarly impressive list of America messing things up for other nations horribly on the basis of self-interest (e.g. Afghanistan, the first time), but I don't really have the background to say much with any confidence. I think such strong arguments could be made both for America being a very benevolent country and a malevolent one that it's hard to really know what to think.

If anyone would like an argument on statistical mechanics though, I'm all set ;)

[lch]

I [...] think you do strange things with facts at times (e.g. the internet having been kindly set up by America? it was invented by a guy from my college in fact)
Heh, what was missing in that list were those fast food chains popping up at every street corner around the world. No longer will humanity have to wait as long for their meals anymore. ;) :angel

[Boronx]

I agree with a lot you say here.
Bush's illegal operations in his War on Terror will lead to the eventual dismantling of almost everything he has done, including compromising any cases to be made against terrorists. Don't agree much about this paragraph, interested in what mean by 'illegal operations'


Torture is illegal under US law and international law.

Unprovoked war is a crime against the peace for which we jailed or hanged many Nazis. It's also, IMHO, the second worst crime that can be committed after genocide. As to US law, Congress did pass approval for the invasion but there were conditions attached that the president had to convey to Congress his determinations about the threat of Iraqi WMD and links to terrorists. Given what we now know to be the state of evidence at the time (there wasn't any), Bush should now be burdened with explaining how he made those determinations. If he can't, he violated US law in addition to committing a crime against the peace.

Third, the Bush administration has detained US citizens on US soil with no charge for years, often in solitary confinement, which for that length of time is tantamount to torture.


...why do you think he is something other than a regular POW at Gitmo?

Prisoners at Gitmo have been subjected to torture and general abuse. They've not enjoyed full access to the Red Cross. They are subject (like the grenade kid) to extra-legal rigged courts that don't allow the defendants to review evidence and admit testimony given under torture.

Federal courts as constituted don't have jurisdiction - this is one of the many reasons why the Nuremberg trials were convened for WWII.

Federal Courts do have jurisdiction to try charges of conspiracy to attack the US. One irony of Bush's illegal war on terror is that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald on his own initiative sought and got indictments against Osama bin Laden, so that if he was ever captured, he might actually receive a fair trial, conviction and execution while his minions, real and mistaken, languish in prison forever with out charge.

Letting terrorists jump the queue for asylum in the US is a bad idea. And again, the US has more than 250 such individuals approved for release - but no country wishes to *take* them.

If they were acquitted, they're not terrorists as far as we know.

[Agema]

[QUOTE=llamabeast;652267I think this is a pity. The US makes a far bigger deal about its history of freedom and equality than in Europe while actually being not especially good at it.

Llama, your post continue to bother me far after I had logged off.

So, I did some thinking...
[/QUOTE]

Many of those are erroneous, a few examples... NATO is not a Human Rights organisation: It's a military defence pact founded to stop Communism. Although Woodrow Wilson worked hard on the League of Nations, the USA Senate actually declined to ratify it. The Red Cross was invented by some Swiss guy in the 19th century, and the founder signatories were only European nations.

Furthermore, American dominance and lead in many of these is not a reflection of American moral superiority, but a reflection of its economic, military and political dominance. Western European nations were just as enthusiastic for some of these endeavours. War-shattered nations of 5-60 million people don't take the lead over largely unscathed nations of 200+ million. Especially when the smaller owes the bigger a vast amount of money and needs more to rebuild.

Not only that, but "disinterested generosity" is not entirely true. Many were simple sensible or active self-interest. The UN was because of the importance of setting up a talking shop rather than risk another world war. The World Bank and IMF are very controversial organisations - you need to read up on the controversies and see why and how they've unwelcomely advanced capitalist ideologies that benefit the West, and in some cases have damaged nations. NATO was a mutual self-defence pact where all benefitted.

America has also done a lot of dark things. If funded guerrillas and coups, often against democratically elected leaders (eg. Chile). It propped up a lot of vicious dictators (Korea, Vietnam). Blacks only got the vote in the late 60s. It has invaded sovereign nations (eg. Panama, Grenada, bombed Yugoslavia as you mentioned earlier) when convenient, but not necessarily under UN rules. There's a lot more.

For all that, I think America does have a strong moral heart, in its population if not always its leaders. But there's a lot of worldwide cynicism about America, and there are an awful lot of cracks in any US claim of moral superiority.

[Tifone]

You continue to cast stones around but you ignore me. Sob, sob.


League of Nations.
United Nations
Nato
Breton Woods
World Bank
IMF
GATT
the Internet
the Marshall Plan
the Outer Space treaty (non militarization)
the Red Cross
Kosovo

And I could continue with quite a few more. These were all instituted either by American lead or with significant american participation.

Woo! I wanna play this too!

In random order:

2 Nuclear Bombs on civil targets in Japan
1 near Bassora
One atrocius pointless war which costed the lives of an entire generation against a sovereign country, in which you used the Geneva-forbidden agent Orange (know the effects?)
Cluster Bombs
Bombardment of Tripoli and Bengasi
Bombardment of Amiria
Support to murderer dictators in Cile, Gautemala, Nicaragua
Among the few (only?) western democracies with death penalty
From 2001, refuting any treaty or convention for the control of war weapons (chimical, bacteriological, mines)
Ku Klux Klan

And of course this:

http://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/300pxguantanamodog.jpg http://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/abughraib.jpg

Sorry, you asked for this to come.

USA invented or were part of very idealistic, nice things. You've done great good. Europe owns you much. I'm sure the USA have a strong, moral heart.

But it's childish to play a "moral superiority game". Every nation has its dark points, and USA as well has very big ones.

There are two primary standards for justice in western civilization. One based on the Anglo-American model and one based on the Roman model.

Serious crimes in the Roman model feature a remand (incarceration) until proven innocent - and it led to an inquisitorial style of court used in France and elsewhere.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yjGwO0J7gWIC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=guilty+until+proven+innocent+french+jurispruden ce&source=web&ots=_mjOrktk9h&sig=a4DT-Z-67ArxACNBM_S3YLjDZMY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code

Of course, wrong.

The Roman model which is the base of civil law has the presumption of innocence. Reverted in the dark ages due to the Inquisition, but Inquisition is surely not the base of modern civil codes.

The Napoleonic Code gave inspiration to the most of the European codes due to its high idealism (together with the German one, for its precision in framing cases into schemes). Anyway, it ended in 1890. Why you take it as example, is beyond my comprehension. In France there's, obviously, presumption of non-culpability.
Also, I wish to remind you that every code or jurisdictional system is son of the history, ideals and people of its nation. You should be much more careful than that in judging procedural laws and systems without deep knowledge. Common sense isn't enough.

[lch]

I'm soft-locking the thread because by now it has about zero to do with the election since a couple of pages already. Doesn't seem to lead anywhere, too.

Unless some other moderator or administrator decides that this thread should stay open longer for this off-topic discussion, I'd suggest that you find an appropriate political forum for your discussion.

[llamabeast]

Would anyone object to move the discussion to the Shrapnel Bar and Grill instead? It has the advantage over most political forums that most people here are pretty smart.