President Obama

[Darth InSidious]

Read what I'm about to say with a closed mind. If you can, please convince me otherwise.

~snipped for space~

But Obama is a different story.

How is this any different, then, from Disraeli's landslide victory of 1874? Last I heard, he didn't end the world.

 

There's no way Obama has the balls to bomb Iran, so your Islamic nuke is secure, don't worry.

Obama won't nuke Iran. It'd be politically dangerous both at home and abroad.

 

I think there's good reason for saying he'll bomb Syria, though.

 

Wait what? "Balls" you say?

 

You mean Truman in the middle of a debriefing in the war room, pulled down his pants and smacked his balls and salami on the table? "Look at the size my balls! They're huuuuuge! They're big as a clocktower bell! You know what these balls say? They say that we need to nuke the japs ASAP! Any further questions? Otherwise you can discuss this matter with my balls in person!"

Possibly not, but you can wager if he could've gotten away with it, Kubrick would have had Turgidson do something similar.

[Meshugger]

As always, you're the exception

in here, i'm one of them, but not everywhere.

 

either way, the argument is specious. it's like saying "well, they're already taking away most of your rights, what's the harm in a few more?" there's a point at which you say enough is enough.

 

What can i say? Maybe i am less of an idealist than you are

 

oh, and btw, it did take a lot of courage, balls if you will, for truman to do what he did. none of us could even begin to imagine the responsibility that comes with having your finger on a trigger that holds in the balance so many lives. it takes courage to evaluate a situation objectively, rationally, in spite of any emotion you might feel toward the situation. to react emotionally could wind up being worse in the long run.

 

taks

 

Humhum, courage is a whole different thing than having balls. Truman thought objectively about the information at hand, analyzed the reports of the japanese fighting spirit and resolve, and acted accordingly to what would cause the least amount of civilian deaths. I would call that courage, responsibility of ones choices and actions, careful judgement and a slight drop of wisdom. Was his judgement wrong? Perhaps, but that is another story. The point is that he acted as objectively as possible, which is everything that having balls is not about.

 

Having balls is something that belongs in the jocks locker-room. Having balls is to act without thinking, to react with a gut-feeling, or emotional so to say. In diplomatic relations and the arena of realpolitik, acting according to your balls is a serious nono. Having balls is something that the lone vigilante does, not a stateman for the people that he or she should represent.

[Meshugger]

There's no way Obama has the balls to bomb Iran, so your Islamic nuke is secure, don't worry.

 

Wait what? "Balls" you say?

 

You mean Truman in the middle of a debriefing in the war room, pulled down his pants and smacked his balls and salami on the table? "Look at the size my balls! They're huuuuuge! They're big as a clocktower bell! You know what these balls say? They say that we need to nuke the japs ASAP! Any further questions? Otherwise you can discuss this matter with my balls in person!"

How did you know? That's exactly what happened!

For the love of god, please refrain from using the term "Balls" in any sentence, except for homo-erotic appriciations of man-heroes. "Balls" and politics never go together, ever. A governing body is expected to act accordingly to the information existing, in very wise and careful manner. Warfare is always the last resort, always.

Yes it is, and it takes balls to go to that last resort. Otherwise you're Chamberlain, not Churchill.

 

Nonononono, and no. Both acted on their ideals, judgement and intellect. One was wrong and the other better insight and thankfully right. That is all that there's to it.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So it takes balls to go right to the last resort?

No, we've been trying the not last resort for 30 years now.

 

There's no way Obama has the balls to bomb Iran, so your Islamic nuke is secure, don't worry.

Obama won't nuke Iran. It'd be politically dangerous both at home and abroad.

I didn't say anything about nuking Iran.

 

Nonononono, and no. Both acted on their ideals, judgement and intellect. One was wrong and the other better insight and thankfully right. That is all that there's to it.

That's the thing about appeasement. The price of taking a stand always seems too high, but the price of appeasement always turns out far, far higher.

 

Oh, Thanks, Russia. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/from-russia-w...defense-system/

[Enoch]

Nonononono, and no. Both acted on their ideals, judgement and intellect. One was wrong and the other better insight and thankfully right. That is all that there's to it.

That's the thing about appeasement. The price of taking a stand always seems too high, but the price of appeasement always turns out far, far higher.

That's only true if you win the war. (And even then, it's no lock.) I'd say that the price the US would have paid for "appeasing" the communist interests in North Vietnam in the mid-1960s were considerably lower than the costs that were eventually expended to "stand up" to them.

 

Anyhow, to get back to the Inauguration, the area around my office is apparently being used as the staging ground for the removal of the portable generators they used along the Mall and parade route. I walked out the door yesterday evening, and there were at least a dozen of them parked along the street. They were car-trailer sized, with a hitch in the front, but they were being loaded onto flatbed trucks for removal back to wherever they came from. Say what you will about the exorbitant cost of the Inauguration, but the funds were freely donated, and it really has been a nice boost to the DC-area economy.

[Brdavs]

Thanks, Russia. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/from-russia-w...defense-system/

 

From Georgia with love?

 

Sucks when the tables turn, don`t it...

 

 

I`ll just say thank feck none of you "geniouses" hold any office heh.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Brdavs

[mkreku]

...but you simply assume that pushing the button, or whatever it happens to be, is the "wrong" thing.

Yes, I do. Intentionally targeting civilians is considered an act of terror even in a state of war. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were military targets. They were cities full of women, children and men. Hospitals, schools, everything was incinerated without discrimination. If you think that's right, then you have no right thinking 9/11 was wrong.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0911010/

 

And what else could Truman have said other than that it was a tough decision to take? That it was a piece of cake and it didn't bother him in the slightest..? Do you ever think for yourself or do you always let politicians think for you?

[Darth InSidious]

There's no way Obama has the balls to bomb Iran, so your Islamic nuke is secure, don't worry.

I didn't say anything about nuking Iran.

Pettifogging.

[Enoch]

Breaking news about the President's relationship with the First Lady:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neCIg0BiXbE

[Gorgon]

...but you simply assume that pushing the button, or whatever it happens to be, is the "wrong" thing.

Yes, I do. Intentionally targeting civilians is considered an act of terror even in a state of war. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were military targets. They were cities full of women, children and men. Hospitals, schools, everything was incinerated without discrimination. If you think that's right, then you have no right thinking 9/11 was wrong.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0911010/

 

And what else could Truman have said other than that it was a tough decision to take? That it was a piece of cake and it didn't bother him in the slightest..? Do you ever think for yourself or do you always let politicians think for you?

Every side in ww2 is guilty of war crimes. The Americans tend to want to wash away their sins by regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki as part of an equation where millions of lives where saved because an invasion of Japan was averted. It is of course a half truth, but one it is the most convenient to remember.

 

The documentary you linked to doesn't dwell on it at all, it merely explores the human aspect of the bombings through the survivors.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Gorgon

[Gorgon]

Nuking Iran because it is on the verge of developing its own bomb is complete lunacy. If anything does happen it will be diplomatic engagement, at worst an invasion.

 

Most analysts realize there is nothing that can be done to prevent countries who have the will to do it from developing their own nuclear capacity eventually. That doesn't mean you start hurling missiles at them, even if they happen to be Muslim.

[taks]

The documentary you linked to doesn't dwell on it at all, it merely explores the human aspect of the bombings through the survivors.

hardly a surprise, and at the same time, nothing to do with what i said. i merely said that it takes courage to do what truman did (not specifying truman). he agonized over the decision and did what he thought was right in the end (agonized the rest of his life from what i've read). half truth or not whether it saved lives, it was thought to be the best course of action at the time. not surprisingly, He actually agreed with me while at the same time telling me i didn't know what i was talking about. what a joker! then he dreams up this strawman argument about intentionally targeting civilians. true or not, it is absolutely immaterial to what he accused me of not understanding in the first place!

 

taks

[Tigranes]

*cough*

 

I admit all the stuff taks and GD and others talk about in politics goes over my head; something I really must remedy at some point. That said, what do you guys think Obama will actually be able to accomplish / screw up / start during his first term?

 

From my uninformed / limited perspective it strikes me that the financial crisis will take at least all of 2009 to get over; Obama will have to work to keep spirits up during that period - closing Guantanamo down, which he's moved on to, should help ease the pain.

 

I doubt he can just start pulling troops out 'tomorrow' - he'd have to negotiate a stand-alone plan for Iraq and so forth, and it's not as a universally agreed upon solution as GB is. The pullout *should* be complete by end of his term though, safe for a few 'peacekeepers', unless something else blows up big around there.

 

Israel/Palestine, doubt he can do much about that.

 

Universal healthcare again, seems like a big ask; expensive complicated controversial plan in a time of tightening belts. I wouldn't have my hopes very high on that one.

 

Generally if he can repeal or stem the tide of some of the more ridiculous anti-terrorist / Homeland Security policies of the Bush years, not screw anything up bad in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan/North Korea, close Guantanamo Bay and steer the country relatively unscathed through the depression, I'd notch that up as a successful presidency..

[Hell Kitty]

Breaking news about the President's relationship with the First Lady:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neCIg0BiXbE

 

Fisting. The key to a perfect marriage.

[taks]

I admit all the stuff taks and GD and others talk about in politics goes over my head; something I really must remedy at some point. That said, what do you guys think Obama will actually be able to accomplish / screw up / start during his first term?

i think it goes over all of our heads, at least, just about everyone looks on at politics with incredulity. my political views are almost to the tee summed up with one word: capitalism. study and understand that, and you'll understand nearly every viewpoint i have on just about every issue (except the socially liberal opinions i have that nobody ever recognizes, but they are connected, sort of, though my deep seated beliefs in individual rights).

 

all in all, i don't think we'll ever get to see if obama is "good" or "bad." he's stuck between a rock and a hard place and he wants to get reelected. that means a lot of the stuff he was talking about last spring during the primaries simply can't happen. he put the right people in place, for his vision that is, but they'll be powerless in the end because most of the stuff they all want to do will cost big dollars, dollars that the public won't tolerate him spending. he'll simply have to ride things out. people on the right will be happy that he hasn't pushed big socialist ideals down our throats, and people on the left will be mad that he didn't.

 

taks

[Yuusha]

The WorldNetDaily website reported:

 

The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.

 

Originally, under the tab "America Serves", Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

Full story.

 

Obama said in a speech in July 2008 in Colorado Springs that he wanted to see a 'civilian national security force' that would be as powerful and well-funded as the Marines, Navy and Air Force. Is it possible Obama is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will rival the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force? Why would he do that? And if that's not the case, why did he say it? What did he mean?'

 

I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. At least that's what Indonesian political analysts say.

[Meshugger]

"WorldNetDaily"

 

Please find another source.

[Enoch]

all in all, i don't think we'll ever get to see if obama is "good" or "bad." he's stuck between a rock and a hard place and he wants to get reelected. that means a lot of the stuff he was talking about last spring during the primaries simply can't happen. he put the right people in place, for his vision that is, but they'll be powerless in the end because most of the stuff they all want to do will cost big dollars, dollars that the public won't tolerate him spending. he'll simply have to ride things out. people on the right will be happy that he hasn't pushed big socialist ideals down our throats, and people on the left will be mad that he didn't.

I suspect that the current economic climate will actually help Obama sell his policy prescriptions to the Congress and the people. The deficit is an abstraction to most people, and they only tend to worry about that kind of thing when times are good and there aren't other more personal concerns. If Obama and his team are successful in pitching their ideas as necessary to address the economic crisis, they'll get a lot of stuff passed that wouldn't fly in calmer times. (I also suspect that, economically, we haven't seen the bottom yet, and that it'll take until around 2011 to get the global economy back on its feet.)

[taks]

I suspect that the current economic climate will actually help Obama sell his policy prescriptions to the Congress and the people.

not if they don't help the economy. the bailouts won't help, at least, not like they think.

 

The deficit is an abstraction to most people, and they only tend to worry about that kind of thing when times are good and there aren't other more personal concerns.

immaterial to my point.

 

If Obama and his team are successful in pitching their ideas as necessary to address the economic crisis, they'll get a lot of stuff passed that wouldn't fly in calmer times. (I also suspect that, economically, we haven't seen the bottom yet, and that it'll take until around 2011 to get the global economy back on its feet.)

again, not unless he can actually improve the economy, and even he has acknowledged that it might take longer than 4 years (uh, spin anyone: "it'll take more than my first term to solve this problem, so don't judge me till after i get reelected!").

 

btw, not that i think polls mean anything substantial, but polls like this are relevant since obama is looking at them...

 

http://people-press.org/report/485/economy...policy-priority

 

taks

[taks]

"WorldNetDaily"

 

Please find another source.

yes, WND is an extremely biased website, but i believe they are right on this one...

 

he wants a national security force. yah, a liberal democrat wants yet another police agency to stick their noses into our lives. his plans, in general, are starting to sound more an more like indoctrinations. and here everyone was worried about bush... hehe.

 

taks

Edited January 23, 2009 by taks

[Enoch]

OK, I think I see your point a bit more clearly now. I was reading too much into the part where you said that the public wouldn't tolerate big spending plans. It is certainly the case that the Obama administration will have to use a lot of its political capital to address pressing economic issues. And, if things don't turn around within a year or so (which, as I said above, I doubt will happen even with the expected large federal fiscal stimulus), that political capital will probably dry up as Congress looks to cover its own ass with the midterm elections looming.

 

 

As for the whole "civilian national security force," it's much ado about nothing. He was talking about encouraging and enabling civilian volunteers to improve America's relations abroad, not about some domestic police agency. Some right-wingers took a line out of context to make it look like he was calling for a new Gestapo. Here's what he actually said:

[As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

 

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem

Edited January 23, 2009 by Enoch

[Hurlshort]

That actually sounds fantastic. I saw a commercial for it this morning as well.

[taks]

As for the whole "civilian national security force," it's much ado about nothing. He was talking about encouraging and enabling civilian volunteers to improve America's relations abroad, not about some domestic police agency.

um, i'm not sure where you get that the civilian national security force has anything to do with america's relations abroad. he's pretty clear here that he's talking about something internal that is just as strong as the military:

 

We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

 

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.

sorry, but he's pushing to make us spy on ourselves. we don't need an internal volunteer national security force. i don't understand why anyone would think we do.

 

taks

[Gfted1]

Isnt the National Guard already a "volunteer national security force" thats (almost) as well funded as the military?

[taks]

they are not volunteer, nor are they as well funded as the military (well, they aren't full-time nor as large), but they do not need to be, either.

 

taks