Political news, yo.

It looked like the Dems but I wasn't sure on that, but some of this stuff should just be let go while we're at war, imo. When our kids come home, if we feel we need to pass a resolution, vote on it. Just not now.

Republican Presidential Nomination

RCP Average: Giuliani +10.7%
Giuliani

30.2%

Thompson

19.5%

McCain

13.0%

Romney

11.2%

Democratic Presidential Nomination

RCP Average: Clinton +25.6%
Clinton

48.2%

Obama

22.6%

Edwards

11.6%

Richardson

3.4%

President Bush Job Approval

RCP Average: Spread -27.8%
Approve

34.0%

Disapprove

61.8%

Congressional Job Approval

RCP Average: Spread -43.6%
Approve

24.6%

Disapprove

68.2%

And lets not forget 41 raised taxes on his last budget, Clinton followed. Remember 'read my lips'

It seems weirdly timed, I agree. But playing the devil's advocate: why is it ever wrong to acknowledge the truth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Swami

It seems weirdly timed, I agree. But playing the devil's advocate: why is it ever wrong to acknowledge the truth?

There's better things to do in the grand scheme of things. There's plenty of crap that is agreed upon by more significant majorities with a more significant positive impact. Hell, even some Armenians (the ones who want to better normalize relations with Turkey) are against how this is going down.

Also, there's the "please assist yourself before assisting others" principle that comes to mind. If this were "confederates" and "blacks", I'd feel differently because it's an issue that we own. Focus on the local injustice. Start with the shit that's currently happening that qualifies as serious injustice.

I agree that the US has a lot of explaining to do before they start asking for explanations from Turkey. Until a full accounting is made of treaty violations against, and forced migrations of, Indian tribes...and who were the prime movers and profiteers of the West African slave trade, which might implicate a lot of our European friends...we should probably just keep our mouths shut.

"Do not point out the small faults of others, for you have large ones yourself."

The problem with the "its just not the time" argument is that there's never a good time to announce that you think the precursors to a muslim ally, located where Turkey is located, practiced genocide. Its not like this is the first time the issue has been at bar or the first time the region has been in strife. I did a little research at the Armenian Research Center at the UofM-Dearborn campus (its literally a couple apartment size rooms filled with bookshelves and an office in the front) and had to write a research paper on the matter. There's really no question that it was a genocide and nearly wiped the people out of existence. Its almost always been a "when will it be declared" issue

Fuck the politics. These people were systematically exterminated and barely survived. I give a shit if people are unhappy with some of their ancestors being declared the tryanical murderers they truly were.

I'm fine with that "people in glass houses" argument but then the proper argument is "we need to declare our own attrocities" not "we shouldn't declare anyone elses either".

It was voted down twice before. And I know NOTHING of history but it wa the Ottomans. Fool hit on that part.

Turkey could prolly get a lil thicker skin on this. I mean who cares if the US Congress passes some words? The shit that is said about the US every day and they're worried about Nanci Pelosi?

Tough one.

re: Genocide. Not sure if this post belongs here but The History Channel(?) has broadcast some shows on the Hitler, Himmler, etc. They are ugly, very graphic. Sickening.

When I see things like this, I want this country to go to Darfur or wherever else we need to go to stop this sort of thing. Its not equivalent with the amount of people being murdered, but we as a nation should stop this sort of thing. I'm not trying to turn this into a Iraq thing, but when I see things like this and remembering what Sadam did to the Kurds and his own people, it makes me support our efforts there more.

Question: Should the US be more active in stepping in when genocide occurs in the world? Should our first steps be to go to the UN? I wish we'd be more consistent with our policy (if we have a policy).

I find it interesting that no nation in the history of the world has ever gone to war to stop a genocide other than their own.

My thinking on this matter is that setting an example really isn't all that important when it comes right down to it. The moral thing to do is always the moral thing to do, no matter who speaks on it. A sociopathic serial killer can still be right about 2+2=4.

The issue here is US policy, as Tahoe says. What the fuck is the policy? Will someone please decide once and for all if the US ever stands for intervening in cases of genocide? If someone's got some ethical reason for standing still while Darfur is wiped out, I'm willing to listen, but let's hear it.

It looks like congress might be coming to its senses. The Republican controlled congress attempted to pass this too, but Clinton asked Hastert not to bring it to a vote. iirc, Hastert finally agreed and it didn't make it to a vote.

Quote:

WASHINGTON — A House vote to label the century-old deaths of Armenians as genocide was in jeopardy Tuesday after several Democrats withdrew their support and sounded alarms it could cripple U.S. relations with Turkey.
The loss of support is a major setback to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, who have fiercely defended the resolution to Republicans and the Bush administration as a moral imperative in condemning the World War I-era killings of up to 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks.

It looks like Steven Colbert will be running for office in '08.

I bet he makes more on an impact in SC than peeps think. If he was in a more liberal state, it would be even more of an impact.

Iran's top Nuke negotiator, Larijani, resigns. He was a moderate. Not good news.

Those Sheiks I was talking about that sided with us, turning against AQ...Well 12 were kidnapped by AQ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

I bet he makes more on an impact in SC than peeps think. If he was in a more liberal state, it would be even more of an impact.

SC won't make me fall asleep the same way Man Of The Year did. That's enough impact for me.

Quote:

Those Sheiks I was talking about that sided with us, turning against AQ...Well 12 were kidnapped by AQ.

Makes ya glad we destablized the region enough to let AQ in the door...

Saddam was a horrible man, and millions trembled under his boot. But his boot came down hardest on Islamic extremists, and it happened without the USA having to lift a finger.

Now look at us.

I agree on that Sadam thing.

But AQ is really screwing up if they kill these Sheiks. Peeps are not liking them and they think they are giong to scare these guys into submission? No way.

The Sunnis had all their little smuggling lanes, the US looked the other way, but AQ destroyed all that commerce. Now they kidnap these guys. AQ is gooofing up. Taliban type rule aint happenin.

I agree that it isn't likely to happen at all. I'm not sure AQ wants Taliban-style rule in Iraq. I don't think it matters what they want. I think AQ is just some kind of mercenary army who books themselves out to Islamic extremist political groups, helps them with their violence, and the extremists don't have to get their hands dirty. They're like the Muslim Blackwater.

LOL Muslim blackwater.

That is exactly what they are doing and want... and sadly that is the only thing that drove the Sheiks to our side.

I'm not saying they don't have an agenda of their own, but whatever agenda they have probably doesn't matter that much in Iraq. The best AQ is going to do is to help some unsavory non-AQ party gain power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Swami

I'm not saying they don't have an agenda of their own, but whatever agenda they have probably doesn't matter that much in Iraq.

Apparently you are not believing what I'm posting then. And thats ok, dont get me wrong.

AQ is pushing the Sunnis toward us. The Sunnis want to have their freedoms and AQ is dropping strict old school, taliban type rule on them. They are having an effect that is helping the US.

Dems hold up AG confirmation based on waterboarding.

I think they're looking at this guy and every time he says "I don't know if waterboarding is torture" all they can think of is Abu Gonzales going "I do not recall. I don't recall that. That doesn't immediately come to mind. I don't remember recalling that."

I would hope that they could look beyond what someone else did in an effort to get and AG a vote. But I also understand politics... a lil bit. And if this is stand on principal (torture) just let it go to a vote.

Schumer and Feinstein are voting for the nomination. So while it appears the majority of Dems aren't voting for him, their are some key Dems that are voting for him.

Its kind of tough for Shumer NOT to vote for him since Shumer was his sponsor for the nomination.

Yeah, Chuck Schumer was his Democratic sponsor, it would be shitty of him not to vote for him. He's going to make it out of committee. But if he didn't, I wouldn't really cry about it. That's what the committee is supposed to do.

If he reminds them of Gonzales, they really should vote against him. Gonzales pretty much represented every single thing that could go wrong with an Attorney General. At this point they're probably thinking "Mukasey is soooooo much better, I should probably take what I get and not be greedy."

I agree on the "if you think you have another Gonzo on your hands, don't vote for him" sentiment. I thought you were saying ... well what was it that I thought you were saying....I'll get back to you. :)

upperdownvote!!!!!111oneone

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy

What potential is that?

As near as I can tell, the Dems are too bought and disjointed to do damage (or do much good), while the Rethugs actively fuck things up. I don't see much collective positive potential with either party.

My number one priority for my Gov't is to protect and defend this country. I see the Republicans doing a better job.

I like tax cuts too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

My number one priority for my Gov't is to protect and defend this country. I see the Republicans doing a better job.

I don't disagree in principle. I probably disagree in definition, though.

What do you see as our biggest threat that we should protect and defend against? To my way of thinking, our biggest threat is ourselves. We're eager to sell out the principles our society was founded on for a bunch of crap or short-term gain.

How do you define "this country"? Are immigrants that live here "us" or "them'? Is Guantanamo Bay "us" or "them"? Are criminals part of this country?

Quote:

I like tax cuts too.

See, I like getting value for my money and work toward that. As far as I can tell, this makes me really fucking weird.

There's lots of people in this world who buy silly things because "they're on sale". I'm related to some of them. There's lots of people who don't know how to manage or leverage debt. I'm related to some of them too. There's no end of people who'll mortgage their kids financially for their own gain -- I am pretty close to them. When I hear "tax cuts", I think about the collective money management skills I see people exercise in daily life, and conclude that they wouldn't know a good tax cut (or increase) if it bit them in the ass.

Of course, to be fair, tax cuts/increases are usually presented absent any solid perspective of where the money goes, how it's managed, and some idea of what costs should be given the prevailing conditions. Most everyone at all levels of government lies and spreads FUD about what it'd take to do their job, what priorities ought to be. Nothing is gained by honest assessments. I doubt even the few quality elected officials who care about such things can do more than take broad guesses. Sometimes, some selective tax increases or decreases appear to boost some greater "good", but it's hard to prove. Everyone has anecdotes, pliable statistics, slogans, and something to sell.

Enough ranting for one post...

Quote:

What do you see as our biggest threat that we should protect and defend against?

Any and all. Iran, NK, Terrorists, trying to keep Russia in the fold, etc

Quote:

To my way of thinking, our biggest threat is ourselves. We're eager to sell out the principles our society was founded on for a bunch of crap or short-term gain.

Do we make mistakes? Yes, but I still see us as one of the best countries.

Not sure what you mean at the end...what is your definition of 'crap' and 'short term gain'?

Quote:

How do you define "this country"?

Citizens and our shorline.

Quote:

Are immigrants that live here "us" or "them'?

illegal immigrants? Are mostly attempting to be US citizens. Transitioning.

The SHIT is hitting the fan in Pakistan right now. Musharaf declares state of emergency, the Supreme Court told him to fuck off (if I'm absorbing this all correctly), and the revolters are about to take over the nukes.

This could get ugly....ier

Don't go imperialistic and start dumb wars without provocation. Don't borrow massive amounts of money that future generations will have to somehow pay off to do it. Don't suspend fundamental rights, like unreasonable search and seizure and habeas corpus. Don't restrict productive immigrants from coming and building in our country. These were the things on my mind when I wrote "sell out the principles our society was founded on for a bunch of crap".

I asked who you think the biggest threat was, and it wasn't clear that you really gave an answer. I think that a whole lot of people would call "job one" for our government "to protect and defend", but there'll be a ton of different answers if you ask "from what -- what's the #1 threat". These priorities color how they feel about government's effectiveness, about who would be the most effective. The leading issue that led to the selection of Bush over Kerry was "moral values", above foreign threats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahoe

This IS ugly....ier

Fixed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy

Don't go imperialistic and start dumb wars without provocation.

I Don't disagree. I know many feel Iraq was a mistake.

Don't borrow massive amounts of money that future generations will have to somehow pay off to do it.

I wish I knew how many times this has come up just in my lifetime. Our debt to GDP(?)ratios, aren't bad at all.

Don't suspend fundamental rights, like unreasonable search and seizure and habeas corpus.

I don't think we've lost any rights.

Don't restrict productive immigrants from coming and building in our country.

Well, Conservatives are pretty upset with Bush and McCain cuz they are seen as lenient on the issue. I want to know who is in this country. It seems easy, but let them come in and work for 3 years or something, and if you keep your nose clean, its a step toward citizenship. But this goes to the 'protect and defend' part of my argument. We don't even know who is in this country. I'm not worried about hispanic terrorists(cuz there haven't been any) as much as AQ coming across.

These were the things on my mind when I wrote "sell out the principles our society was founded on for a bunch of crap".

I asked who you think the biggest threat was, and it wasn't clear that you really gave an answer. I think that a whole lot of people would call "job one" for our government "to protect and defend", but there'll be a ton of different answers if you ask "from what -- what's the #1 threat". These priorities color how they feel about government's effectiveness, about who would be the most effective. The leading issue that led to the selection of Bush over Kerry was "moral values", above foreign threats.

Without having inside info, I can't evaluate which of my list is numero uno. Iran and Terrorists seem to rise to the top off the top of my head though.

Fixed.

When I wrote what I did about productive immigrants, I was thinking of the H-1B program, not so much the raging debate. If someone could come into the U.S. and be immediately productive (has job skills and could pass a TOEFL, isn't a terrorist whackjob or indentured servant), we shouldn't turn their work away. They will just produce elsewhere. If we're lucky, they work for an American firm overseas and maybe we get something back. If we're unlucky, they'll take an American job (or more) in the process. Hell, we used to have migrant workers work here, then go back to Mexico to live, and we built a helluva country on the backs of immigrants.

As for debt as a function of GDP, I've said this before, but viewing debt as a function of GDP gets problematic. As the GDP grows, is it doing so -because- of the added debt or in spite of it, and to what extent does that GDP growth end up mapping back to real increased revenues coming in? If the GDP doesn't grow as much as the debt incurred "should" make it grow -- not exactly the easiest thing to divine -- what then? What does that GDP mean? It's a messy beast relative to a "income in, expenses out" balance sheet, and can be used to prove anything you want.

Lots of people want to infringe on our rights, in cover of darkness (domestic wiretapping), contorting definitions to the point of absurdity (newsflash -- waterboarding is torture, the Internet is not a telephone as much as some people might think otherwise), coaxing elected officials to vote it away (habeas corpus, the odious War On Drugs laws), etc. They're chipped away little by little, one tiny encroachment after another, and eventually it hits you direct long after you've been indirectly bit. You have to give your fucking driver's license to get Claritin-D now. That's really fucking brilliant.

Enough ranting for one day...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy

When I wrote what I did about productive immigrants, I was thinking of the H-1B program, not so much the raging debate. If someone could come into the U.S. and be immediately productive (has job skills and could pass a TOEFL, isn't a terrorist whackjob or indentured servant), we shouldn't turn their work away. They will just produce elsewhere. If we're lucky, they work for an American firm overseas and maybe we get something back. If we're unlucky, they'll take an American job (or more) in the process. Hell, we used to have migrant workers work here, then go back to Mexico to live, and we built a helluva country on the backs of immigrants.

Agree. Maybe we should feel fortunate there is so much corruption in Mexico keeping their economy down.

As for debt as a function of GDP, I've said this before, but viewing debt as a function of GDP gets problematic. As the GDP grows, is it doing so -because- of the added debt or in spite of it, and to what extent does that GDP growth end up mapping back to real increased revenues coming in? If the GDP doesn't grow as much as the debt incurred "should" make it grow -- not exactly the easiest thing to divine -- what then? What does that GDP mean? It's a messy beast relative to a "income in, expenses out" balance sheet, and can be used to prove anything you want.

In spite of, imo. If GDP isn't going up, spending/borrowing HAS to go down. Will our gov't do that? ??? These are such huge dollars that a slight change can make a huge difference in projections. iirc, we are back in the right direction again, as long as Bush keeps his veto pen out.

Lots of people want to infringe on our rights, in cover of darkness (domestic wiretapping), contorting definitions to the point of absurdity (newsflash -- waterboarding is torture, the Internet is not a telephone as much as some people might think otherwise), coaxing elected officials to vote it away (habeas corpus, the odious War On Drugs laws), etc. They're chipped away little by little, one tiny encroachment after another, and eventually it hits you direct long after you've been indirectly bit. You have to give your fucking driver's license to get Claritin-D now. That's really fucking brilliant.

But its only domestic wiretapping if you are calling someone in another country who is a known or suspected terrorist, right? That doesn't bother me in the least.

Waterboarding to me is not torture. It doesn't 'shock my conscience' for our gov't to scare someone. They aren't going to drown. It scares them, cuz those 2 in Pakistan coughed up plenty of info. Its a great tactic cuz it works and doesn't cause any harm.

To me, the question isn't does waterboarding fit someones definition of torture, its whether we should use the tactic or not? And to that, I answer yes.

Enough ranting for one day...

We got this entirely different war going on and we have to be able to 'adjust' (adjust can be a slippery slope can't it?) our tactics. They are cutting off the heads of innocent US citizens over there, we have to be able to run some water over their faces to protect the country and citizens.

Yeah, but they're only cutting off the heads of US citizens who go to Iraq. That doesn't bother me in the least.

The 2 that came to mind when i was wrtting that was a US citzn in Saudia Arabia (not military) and the other non-military kid who helped with communication towers.

Do you have any problem with us saying 'boo' to them?

Couldn't give 2 shits.