What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[Willie71]

iNow,There is a certain communication that occurs between you and me when I say something, and you say something.That communication is different than the communication that is occurring between you and any other particular poster, or reader of this board.Writing words on this page are directed at you, because I addressed you, but I want anyone listening to hear the words, as well.I have ongoing debates with specific people on specific points on this thread, and issues carried over from others. Well chosen points and stories on my part are not ramblings. They are intentional attempts at communication. To get an idea in my head into other people's head. To have a discussion. To explore ideas. To bring up points. To ask people to put themselves in someone else's shoes, and to give other people the benefit of the doubt and concede that this is other people's world, as well, and other people, even people that do stupid stuff, or make mistakes or do something contrary your opinion of what it means to be a good person, still just might, and probably are good people.In any and all cases, we care about what other people think about us, and what we say, and what we do. We like to be doing it right, with other people, even people we don't know, appreciating our efforts. Or as Hilary says, I am for you, even if you are not for me.Groupthink, in my definition, is having an image in your mind of an invisible other that is judging your behavior. You know what thoughts are proper, you know what thoughts are not. You think and say and act in a way that will be accepted and rewarded and encouraged by your team, and avoid those thoughts and words and actions that will bring punishment or disgust or shunning from those you care about. Your group.Regards, TARWillie71,People loyal to the king, like the three Musketeers are the good guys.People rebelling against the king, are mischief makers.If the king is unjust as in Robin Hood, someone needs to fight for the people, 'till the good king returns from the Crusades.If the queen says let them eat cake, when told the people have no bread, then you have a revolution.For the past 7 years the democrats have been on the throne. Hilary can not, and make sense at the same time, pull the Robin Hood card, and use the same slogans the Democrats used to replace the evil king Bush.Regards, TAR

 

Tar, it has been acknowledged that the money in politics is a corrupting force, and Obama a AND Hillary are bought. This is why Bernie is so popular. He refuses to take money from super pacs. We should not support any candidate, republican or democrat who is bought off. I agree Hillary does not have a leg to stand on calling this corruption out.

 

What the democrats don't do, is sacrifice health care, social security, or veterans benefits to make donors richer, but republicans do. Republicans will also use racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, and fearmongering to make their donors richer. I agree fully that both establishment republicans and democrats need to be weeded out, and the only candidate pushing for that is sanders. Trump claims not to be establishment, but has not proposed changes to the oligarchy. He is wisely tapping into the discontent across the nation, but is like Obama, falsely promising change that will not happen.

Phi,So you are right. You demonize people you don't even know, and can not figure why they are not as angry as you are at other people's behavior.Perhaps some of us, give the other guy the benefit of the doubt and realize the world is not arranged only for me or for you, but for us, and by us.If the us is doing the arranging, then we have the us to thank for it.Some of those individuals are conservatives.Regards, TARWillie71,I know you are not voting in the primaries, but if you lived in New Hampshire would you be registered democrat, independent or republican?Who would you get your vote?Do you figure everybody who does not vote for your guy or gal is an idiot?Regards, TAR

 

I think the American system is stupid in general. You have to pick one of two parties, and that limits nuance.

 

If I was American, I would be independent, but I would be a Bernie supporter. That would be a problem in the primaries, but not in the general.

 

I don't think anyone who does not think like me is an idiot. If someone voted based on a desire for increase in GDP over wealth inequality, wanted imperialism, and was not concerned with destruction of the planet, and therefore chose a republican candidate, they would be making a smart choice with those values. If they wanted equal opportunity for their children, social security, and affordable health care, they should vote for a candidate who supports those ideas, in this case Bernie. If someone wanted the latter set of principles, and voted republican, evidence says they are ignorant, or misinformed. They become an idiot when the evidence is presented as clear as day, and they held on to the delusion that a republican vote equals health care, education, social security, and equitable wealth distribution.

[tar]

Willie,

 

Thank you for that assessment. I will take it under consideration, when the primary rolls around to my town.

 

I am however, registered republican and cannot vote in the democrat primary. The power of your will, exercised through my pull of the lever, might not be effective 'til election day. However, I believe I would vote for Sanders before Cruz or Trump. On your recommendation.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Ten Oz,

 

I could only possibly be allowed to make that self assessment, if you allow that there could possibly be such a thing as a reasonable conservative.

 

Are you saying reasonable conservative is an oxymoron, or that I am not a reasonable person, or that by definition one can not make an objective assessment of themselves?

Willie71,

 

As an objective viewer, and ally of the U.S. would you be happy with Bernie at the head of our State Department and Military, when it comes to Boko Haram, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Iran, Russia, China and North Korea?

 

Regards, TAR

But I would vote for an establishment republican before an establishment democrat. The planks on the dem party have moved to the left, as I have moved toward the status quo as I have aged.

So anti establishment, I would go Bernie, instead of Trump.

Establishment I would go Kasich before Clinton.

Edited February 6, 2016 by tar

[Willie71]

Willie,Thank you for that assessment. I will take it under consideration, when the primary rolls around to my town.I am however, registered republican and cannot vote in the democrat primary. The power of your will, exercised through my pull of the lever, might not be effective 'til election day. However, I believe I would vote for Sanders before Cruz or Trump. On your recommendation.Regards, TARTen Oz,I could only possibly be allowed to make that self assessment, if you allow that there could possibly be such a thing as a reasonable conservative.Are you saying reasonable conservative is an oxymoron, or that I am not a reasonable person, or that by definition one can not make an objective assessment of themselves?Willie71,As an objective viewer, and ally of the U.S. would you be happy with Bernie at the head of our State Department and Military, when it comes to Boko Haram, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Iran, Russia, China and North Korea?Regards, TAR

 

Bernie is seen as being weakest on foreign policy, but his policy is sound. Being smart isn't weak. As long as foreigners are trying to put down the radical groups, it fuels animosity towards those foreign powers. He supports King Abdullah who says the fight is for the heart of Islam. They believe the front line needs to be Muslim fighters, with a coalition backing them. He wants to get the middle eastern powers to the table to discuss the issues, which may be naieve, but that was said about Obama being able to get a nuclear deal too. We have to have politicians be more honest about the role of Saudi Arabia and Israel, with their crimes against humanity, and none of the politicians are going there as it is political suicide.

 

All of the other candidates are looking to continue with the bush plan, which Obama expanded on (using fewer ground troops, but more bombing raids) and Clinton will continue to expand this. On the republican side, they are looking at all out war, possibly even using nuclear attacks. They also would go back to torture and carpet bombing civillians, both war crimes.

 

Bernie might not be able to pull it off, but he won't make the problem worse.

[Ten oz]

@ TAR, people generally do not consider themselves as unsensible. ISIS members believe they have a sensible view toward Islam. Declaring positive self judgements is useless.

 

Bernie Sanders:

"“We live in a difficult and dangerous world, and there are no easy or magical solutions. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I will defend this nation, its people, and America’s vital strategic interests, but I will do it responsibly."

 

"While we must be relentless in combating terrorists who would do us harm, we cannot and should not be policeman of the world, nor bear the burden of fighting terrorism alone. The United States should be part of an international coalition, led and sustained by nations in the region that have the means to protect themselves"

 

What about Sanders and his positions concerns you? From is campaign's web page:

Iran:

The U.S. must do everything it can to make certain that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, that a nuclear Iran does not threaten Israel, and to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region. Sen. Sanders supports the agreement between the U.S., Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program, because it has the best chance of limiting Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon, while avoiding yet another war in the region.

ISIS:

We live in a dangerous world full of serious threats, perhaps none more so than the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Qaeda. Senator Sanders is committed to keeping America safe, and pursuing those who would do Americans harm.

But we cannot combat international terrorism alone. We must work with our allies to root out terrorist funding networks, provide logistical support in the region, disrupt online radicalization, provide humanitarian relief, and support and defend religious freedom. Moreover, we must begin to address the root causes of radicalization, instead of focusing solely on military responses to those who have already become radicalized.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/war-and-peace/

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Bernie's plan sounds like what we have been doing, and it is not working yet. We have not degraded ISIS we have made them stronger. More recruits not l ess. Whatever Bernie thinks the root causes of radicalization are, he may not completely understand, because they are the same ideas that Clinton and Kerry have had, and the plan is not working very well. Our recent bombing campaign, along with others, has reduced the amount of ISIS fighters in Syria, and caused additional frictions as Russia and Iran are backing Assad, and we are not, and the amount of ISIS fighters in the north central part of Libya has doubled. Boko Haram is making a mess of Chad and other countries right below Libya. These countries, Syria, Iran, Libya and other African states were in the U.S. war against terrorism, that was hamstrung by pacifists. Pacifism may not be the way to go against it. Letting local powers fight is out on the ground, is not working either. Adding Saudi troops and Iranian troops to Syria, will be no better a path to peace, than putting American troops on the ground. If a proxy war, between Turkey and Iran and Saudi Arabia and the U.S. is being fought in Syria, it would be good to know if Bernie is on the side of the U.S. and Israel and France and Britain and Turkey, and the Kurds and moderate Sunnis or whether he is satisfied to let things go, as they are going, with Russian and Iran, ISIS and Al Qeada all gaining strength in the area, while we drop bombs on people and piss them off.

 

My thinking is, that if you drop bombs on people you should be their enemy and desire to utterly defeat them. Take away completely, their ability to hurt you back. Dropping bombs on people, pretending you don't want to hurt them, is really stupid.

 

It is impossible to know who to support, without being on the ground. It is impossible to make sure your equipment does not fall into the wrong hands, unless you are on the ground. Our military is very very good. I was in it. I know our capabilities and I don't need to tell them out loud. But I do know, that the things Fox says, and the things Rush Limbaugh says about the military are true. The job of the marines and special forces is to break things and kill people. A pacifist can not effectively be in charge of such a group of individuals. Last resort, certainly. But when all else fails and you need to result to force, than force should be used. And you can not be afraid that using force is going to piss off your enemies. You already have asked them nicely to be nice. You already have asked them not to kill people and steal stuff, and break stuff. If they persist, you have to physically stop them, or let them walk all over you.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited February 6, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

Bernie is seen as being weakest on foreign policy, but his policy is sound. Being smart isn't weak. As long as foreigners are trying to put down the radical groups, it fuels animosity towards those foreign powers. He supports King Abdullah who says the fight is for the heart of Islam. They believe the front line needs to be Muslim fighters, with a coalition backing them. He wants to get the middle eastern powers to the table to discuss the issues, which may be naieve, but that was said about Obama being able to get a nuclear deal too. We have to have politicians be more honest about the role of Saudi Arabia and Israel, with their crimes against humanity, and none of the politicians are going there as it is political suicide.

 

All of the other candidates are looking to continue with the bush plan, which Obama expanded on (using fewer ground troops, but more bombing raids) and Clinton will continue to expand this. On the republican side, they are looking at all out war, possibly even using nuclear attacks. They also would go back to torture and carpet bombing civillians, both war crimes.

 

Bernie might not be able to pull it off, but he won't make the problem worse.

Bernie seems weak to some because the others are all but promising to use force if elected. Using our military as a last resort in our current political atmosphere is often mistaken for pacifism.

The job of the marines and special forces is to break things and kill people. A pacifist can not effectively be in charge of such a group of individuals. Last resort, certainly. But when all else fails and you need to result to force, than force should be used. And you can not be afraid that using force is going to piss off your enemies. You already have asked them nicely to be nice. You already have asked them not to kill people and steal stuff, and break stuff. If they persist, you have to physically stop them, or let them walk all over you.

 

Regards, TAR

You either do not know the definition of pacifist or you are willfully mistating Bernie's position on these matters.

[tar]

Like with Assad. You want him out, put him out. You want to talk and make peace and help him regain control of his country, you do the thing. Halfway hurts.

 

Some military I have talked to, have not liked being police, with limited rules of engagement in a foreign county. When somebody wants to kill you, and you can't go after them, it is very hard. I only have heard this in person from one, and he was in the aCBs and not infantry, but I have heard it second and third hand, and I understand it. If you shouldn't be there. Don't be there. If you should be there to fight, fight someone. If what is needed is humanitarian and civilian in nature, send humanitarian aid and civilian helpers and engineers and medical staff and support people, like the peace corps. If you need somebody protected from an armed group you send an armed group with the intent of breaking things and killing people, capturing people and putting them in prison. Against a state, that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, fighters can be captured and held and their human rights protected. How to fight Al Qaeda and Boko Haram and ISIS in a humane fashion, has not yet been figured out.

 

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

I am using pacifist as in how Bernie was against going into Iraq against Saddam.

 

Even Clinton, before Bush, knew that Saddam was willfully obstructing the inspectors and was in favor of no fly zones and other military options against Saddam. He was not in favor of sending in troops, but that, is a decision to be made by the pentagon. The commander in chief says what he wants done, and the experts get it done. Telling me that shooting down or blowing up a military target from the air, is peace and going in on the ground where you can see who you are shooting, is war, is the exact doublespeak that 1984 was talking about.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Either way is war.

Why pussyfoot around. Declare it. Fight it. Win it. And live in peace with the vanquished, like we did with the Japnese and the Germans and the Italians.

And tried to do with the Iraqis.

The military will do what its told to do. But certain rules of engagement are not built around sound military procedures. That is my only question with Bernie. Will he use our military correctly, or put them in situations where the rules of engagement makes them sitting ducks in a hostile country.

well that is not my only question with Bernie, he has not found the proper ways to pay for universal health care, but I would rather he than Cruz or Trump or Hillary

Edited February 6, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

@ TAR, you are overlooking one major reality; whomever is elected this year terrorism will still exist in the world when their administration ends. You are speaking in absolues that do not exist in the real world. Your notion that we can "utterly defeat them. Take away completely" is comically absurd. There has always been and will coming to be radicalized groups in the world. The challange of ensuring our security is not a question of war or no war, kill or be killed. It is an ongoing process that changes every few years.

 

Do you remember what a big deal it was when we got Pablo Escobar? Movies have been made, books have been written, and so on about it. Yet it did not end the war on drugs? Did it even slow the volume of drugs on the streets in the United States? Now we just caught Chapo Guzman. Do you suspect putting Guzman in jail will means the war on drugs is over and won? From opioids to crack to meth back to opioids the battle front just keeps moving and transforming.

 

So we can discuss ISIS, Syria, Chad, and whatever else but lets not be unrealistic about what we assume can be accomplished. At this point I believe unifying a response amongst as many countries as we can get to the table is more important than getting on the ground and killing. We must address islamic terror without hurting relationships and creating new enemies.

[tar]

I would rather Graham or Paul, but they are not around.

 

The system we have is condusive to partisan bickering. Two parties, black and white, good and evil. Maybe would be better if we each had the guts to go with the person that best reflected our view of the world. Vote anarchist if that is our bent, or socialist, or communist, or nationalist, or libertarian and not feel you have to equivocate to win the national election. The way it is now, you have to hold your nose and vote so someone you like even less won't get in. The majority does not like the teaparty or the communist party. Thinking of them as mainstream is not the correct vision of America.

 

We have a little of everything in us. Its what we are when we put everything together, that makes us strong.

Ten Oz.

 

International terrorism, terrorism without a state, on the scale of Al Qaeda and ISIS is a new thing for the world.

 

If ISIS is not a state, then we should help the governments of the states in which they are operating, defeat them. Like the occupiers in Oregon, you wait them out, then if they don't give up, you go in and arrest them.

 

Pure and simple. If ISIS is a state, then call them a state, and declare war on them, and defeat them. I think we can figure a way to do this. Not easy. They are experts themselves. They are Saddam's best generals. They are a powerful foe and they have a system put together where rape and pillage are part of the reward for the fighters. They are strong and getting stronger. But the generals have to be somewhere. The hidden munitions and equipment have to be somewhere. Under the ground, most likely, but you need to root them out. Capture or kill the leaders, free the sex slaves and the unwilling subjects, and return the countryside to Assad's rule and then ask for a new election. If Assad wins, then he shall continue to be king. Same as if Hilary wins I must accept it, or if Trump wins I must accept it. We should not decide for another country, who their leaders should be. Regime change, I think is allowable if the world votes against a harmful dictator, but the thing should be done fast and sure, and the world should fill the vacuum until the people chose their future. If its just a king like Assad, that is not quite as perfect a leader as we would like to see, we perhaps should not fund a revolution against him, unless we mean to remove him.

 

Boko Haram is revolutionaries fighting against a corrupt establishment...but they need defeating.

 

Bernie Sanders is a revolutionary fighting against a corrupt establishment...but England should not send drones in to take out Bernie.

 

Distinctions can be made, and we can fight and win against our enemies. We can together build and maintain a better world. But we can not do it if Democrats hate Republicans, and Republicans hate democrats.

 

Regards, TAR

house of commons, house of lords, you can be adversaries and still respect each other and figure out the laws you want to follow, and you can all together, still love your queen

I even love your queen and we fought and won a war against the redcoats

[Willie71]

Ten Oz,Bernie's plan sounds like what we have been doing, and it is not working yet. We have not degraded ISIS we have made them stronger. More recruits not l ess. Whatever Bernie thinks the root causes of radicalization are, he may not completely understand, because they are the same ideas that Clinton and Kerry have had, and the plan is not working very well. Our recent bombing campaign, along with others, has reduced the amount of ISIS fighters in Syria, and caused additional frictions as Russia and Iran are backing Assad, and we are not, and the amount of ISIS fighters in the north central part of Libya has doubled. Boko Haram is making a mess of Chad and other countries right below Libya. These countries, Syria, Iran, Libya and other African states were in the U.S. war against terrorism, that was hamstrung by pacifists. Pacifism may not be the way to go against it. Letting local powers fight is out on the ground, is not working either. Adding Saudi troops and Iranian troops to Syria, will be no better a path to peace, than putting American troops on the ground. If a proxy war, between Turkey and Iran and Saudi Arabia and the U.S. is being fought in Syria, it would be good to know if Bernie is on the side of the U.S. and Israel and France and Britain and Turkey, and the Kurds and moderate Sunnis or whether he is satisfied to let things go, as they are going, with Russian and Iran, ISIS and Al Qeada all gaining strength in the area, while we drop bombs on people and piss them off.My thinking is, that if you drop bombs on people you should be their enemy and desire to utterly defeat them. Take away completely, their ability to hurt you back. Dropping bombs on people, pretending you don't want to hurt them, is really stupid.It is impossible to know who to support, without being on the ground. It is impossible to make sure your equipment does not fall into the wrong hands, unless you are on the ground. Our military is very very good. I was in it. I know our capabilities and I don't need to tell them out loud. But I do know, that the things Fox says, and the things Rush Limbaugh says about the military are true. The job of the marines and special forces is to break things and kill people. A pacifist can not effectively be in charge of such a group of individuals. Last resort, certainly. But when all else fails and you need to result to force, than force should be used. And you can not be afraid that using force is going to piss off your enemies. You already have asked them nicely to be nice. You already have asked them not to kill people and steal stuff, and break stuff. If they persist, you have to physically stop them, or let them walk all over you.Regards, TAR

By using western forces, and killing thousands of civillians, we keep giving fresh recruits to Isis. The more force we use, the more they recruit. This was predicted before going into the Iraq war, and still holds true.

 

Your plan to increase force increases isis' strength, as it confirms that western forces want to destroy their way of life (sounds eerily familiar, for some reason.) Bernie's plan is the smartest, but it results in less profit for the military industrial complex, the main driving force behind the islamophobic rhetoric. He isn't beholden to those donors, but Hillary and the republican candidates are, excepting Trump, but his rhetoric speaks for itself.

Bernie seems weak to some because the others are all but promising to use force if elected. Using our military as a last resort in our current political atmosphere is often mistaken for pacifism.

You either do not know the definition of pacifist or you are willfully mistating Bernie's position on these matters.

I think Bernie has the strongest position on the Middle East, and it is the same direction our Canadian Military is going. Trudea is returning Canada's military to its peacekeeping roots, but this requires massive retraining.

 

Unfortunately, a strong nuanced position that takes more than one or two sentences to explain has a hard time with sound bite sized arguments. No doubt Hillary is the most knowledgeable candidate on the players in world affairs, but she is hawkish, and bought by the war Hawks.

[iNow]

By using western forces, and killing thousands of civillians, we keep giving fresh recruits to Isis. The more force we use, the more they recruit. This was predicted before going into the Iraq war, and still holds true.

 

Your plan to increase force increases isis' strength, as it confirms that western forces want to destroy their way of life (sounds eerily familiar, for some reason.)

Just like you and others, I presented this same position to Tar nearly 3 months ago and it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

 

First here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92159-paris-attacks/?p=893998

Then again some days later here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92159-paris-attacks/?p=894877

 

It's no use, IMO. Whether willfully or not, it's just not sinking in for him.

[Willie71]

It seems many republicans understand strength the same way a schoolyard bully does. Tantrums, posturing, shouting, but easily outsmarted by others.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Willie71

[iNow]

You're watching the GOP debate right now, too, I see.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/best-lines-republican-debate/story?id=36762258

[Willie71]

You're watching the GOP debate right now, too, I see.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/best-lines-republican-debate/story?id=36762258

Watching it on TYT with live commentary and live tweets. Funny shit.

[overtone]

Why pussyfoot around. Declare it. Fight it. Win it. And live in peace with the vanquished, like we did with the Japnese and the Germans and the Italians.

And tried to do with the Iraqis.

We did not try to do the same things with the Iraqis we did with the Germans and Japanese and Italians. That was because our government did not have the same wisdom and ability and sound comprehension in 2003 that we had in 1948. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

 

Notice that the US did not attempt to help the Iranians as it did the Soviet Union, for example. Notice also the difference between the US attempts to restore the artistic treasures of Europe and Japan (there's a movie out, portraying the efforts as heroic - there will be no such movie about our Iraq occupation) vs the cavalier dismissal of the museums and other cultural treasures of Iraq. And we flat out betrayed the Kurds - as usual, but the usual failure was the anticipated and delivered consequence.

 

 

 

The system we have is condusive to partisan bickering. Two parties, black and white, good and evil.

No. There is no "good" Party. There is one major source of partisan intransigence, and it is not an inevitable product of "our system" but rather a corrupter of it. Only one Party is responsible for that - the Republican, also known as "Tea", Party.

 

 

The majority does not like the teaparty or the communist party. Thinking of them as mainstream is not the correct vision of America.

They may not be the mainstream, whatever that is, but the teaparty controls both houses of Congress as we speak, and has provided every viable Presidential candidate other than Sanders or Clinton.

 

That's my nomination for America's biggest single problem.

 

 

Watching it on TYT with live commentary and live tweets. Funny shit.

This guy liveblogs some of them - this is a casual driveby compared to his others, but you may enjoy: http://driftglass.blogspot.com

 

His signoff: "Tonight, the part of Private Deadmeat who stands up at the end of the movie "'cause there ain't no sniper Sarge!" and takes one right to the melon was played by Marco Rubio."

 

The last one: http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2016/01/at-gopdebate-phase-one.html

The intro:

" Phase One:

Rand Paul: I predict we'll get a lot of the puberty vote. Oh. "Liberty vote"? Yeah, we'll get them too.

 

John Kasich: There are nine lanes. The conservative lane. The crazy lane. The biker lane. The Diane Lane. The Insane Clown Lane. The "getting laid" lane. The Kasich lane. What was the question?

 

Ben Carson: Sometimes they let me out of the box so I can think there. The country is abnormal. I get calls late at night.

 

Ted Cruz: I will kill anyone with an "I" or an "S" in their name. Unlike Obama who wants to sell your children off to devious furriners. I will saturation bomb those areas where the bad guys will gather conveniently under my falling bombs.

 

Marco Rubio: ISIS is more dangerous than Ming the Merciless times Hitler times Vlad the Impaler. We will need to send over 100 million zillion soldiers over there to take down the Ottoman Empire

 

Ted Cruz: Jimmmmmmy Carrrrrter. Bwahaha. Yes I have a huge boner right now. Yes I call it "Reagan".

Over on every other channel, Donald Trump is still answering the first "question". "

Edited February 7, 2016 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Yes, its all very funny. The republicans are goofy and we, all that are progressive, can laugh at their ignorance, and simultaneously cry at what they are doing to the wonderful American people and all the great things that America stands for.

 

But the tea party was a reaction to Obama. They didn't get voted in, until Obama asked for laws that were only wanted by his party. It has not been presidential, to not work with your congress, and instead use executive orders to defy the will of congress.

 

Bill Clinton worked with Kasich and the republicans after Hilarycare failed and the congress was voted Republican which had not happened for years. That is when the budget surpluses came about. When a democratic president, worked with a republican congress. And this was within the last 50 years that you swear the republican party has ruined for America.

 

So you can't use the teaparty to characterize the republican party for the last 50 years, because they only arose in the last 7 years as a reaction to Obamacare. The last time an all democrat congress was replaced by an all republican congress, we had 4 years of surpluses as Clinton worked with the congress.

 

Obama is not working with an all republican congress, and now we have Cruz and Rubio. I don't like either one, and I don't like the teaparty, but neither am I taking full responsibility for their rise, it had something to do with Obama wanting to have his way, regardless of the way the republican party wanted to go.

 

And the arguments one could use to vote for change, to remove Bush and fix Iraq, and fix the recession, and win the war against terrorism cannot be used again, because Bush is no longer president, we have come out of the recession to some large degree, and Obama has had 7 years to fix Iraq and Bin Laden is dead and we are still in Afghanistan.

 

The anger parts of the Muslim world have toward America is real and dangerous. Americans can not travel in some countries, without getting kidnapped and held for ransom. Paying the ransom and negotiating with terrorists, is doing exactly the harm that we have known for years is what occurs if you pay the ransom. Another American gets kidnapped.

 

There have always been pirates, but the idea is to get rid of the pirates so that being a pirate is a loosing proprosition.

If you vote for change now, what are you voting to change from, and what are you voting to change to?

 

Which part of being American are you willing to accept and which part are you willing to reject?

 

You cannot travel, as an American, in Northern Libya, with any more safety and security than I can.

 

I don't think ISIS checks your party registration.

 

Regards, TAR

I think the debate went well for Kasich, Christie and Bush, the governors. Christie destroyed Rubio in the first part of the debate, but Rubio came back a little. Trump had some bad moments and might have lost his big lead. Cruz I think will be overtaken by one or two of the governors and Carson was hardly there and probably cannot carry on too much longer, unless South Carolina votes for him.

 

It is early, with plenty of votes yet to go, but I am thinking we are looking at a Kasich/Christie ticket and a Clinton/Biden ticket.

 

I would vote for Kasich.

 

I hope though, that Cruz goes because he is too fascist. Rubio I hope goes because he is too young and inexperienced. And I wouldn't mind if Kasich found a better VP than Christie, whose stance against Planned Parenthood I don't like at all.

 

My hope is that Trump does not do nearly as well as he thinks he is going to do in New Hampshire. He will fold very quickly if he cannot maintain his "winner" brag. Sort of like the rabbit in a long distance race. You send the sprinter out to set a fast pace for the first couple laps, but he gets winded and the real long distance runners take over. One of the governors. If its Kasich he will have to raise big money, fast or he will not be able to hang with Bush.

 

If Trump or Cruz somehow gets the nomination, I think I will revert to my democrat roots.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited February 7, 2016 by tar

[overtone]

 

 

But the tea party was a reaction to Obama. They didn't get voted in, until Obama asked for laws that were only wanted by his party.

- - -

So you can't use the teaparty to characterize the republican party for the last 50 years, because they only arose in the last 7 years as a reaction to Obamacare.

Bullshit.

 

Have some self respect. Own up to what you voted for, and what they did.

 

The Tea Party is the Republican Party, they are one and the same, and it started playing dress up in three-cornered hats and parading around yakking about the Constitution and renaming itself in 2009 as soon as Obama put a black hand on the Bible and became President -

 

long before Obama "asked for laws" (whatever that is supposed to mean), long before Obamacare -

 

for two reasons: 1) because the alternative would have been facing what the last eight years of their ruinous behavior had done to the country. 2) because they were racial bigots and the thought of a black President drove them right around the bend.

 

As far as 1): The Republican Party is simply in denial. They got everything they wanted, with W, and it blew up in their faces exactly the way the lefties had been telling them, for years, that it would. It was a disaster, eight years of the worst government this country has ever seen as a Union, and it was completely their fault. We have been digging out of this sewage pit they drove us into ever since. It's going to take decades more. It might not even be possible.

 

Meanwhile: the guys who got rich? They're trying to do it again. There was no Crash for them, the Iraq War was a gravy train of profits, Katrina was just black people, they think W&Co just got a bad press.

 

And 2): the Confederacy rose again. Racial bigotry lives, in the US, and it's organized itself in the Republican Party. A secret Muslim? Born in Kenya? "You lie!" at the State of the Union? Gun sales tripling after the election results were announced? C'mon - nobody's fooled. This is a psychiatric disorder we are all familiar with in this country. We didn't need the monkey dolls and the posters of Obama with a bone through his nose at the "Tea Party" rallies, to know what we're looking at.

 

 

It has not been presidential, to not work with your congress, and instead use executive orders to defy the will of congress.

But that isn't what happened, is it. That's a comforting little fairy tale you tell yourself to avoid looking in the mirror.

 

Obama almost never used executive orders early on, far less than most Presidents, and he spent all his time for years trying to compromise with a Party that had no goal but obstruction of anything - even their own bills - that he supported. Meanwhile, the Republicans in the Senate set a record for filibusters. Hundreds of filibusters, hundreds of bills bottled up in committee, dozens of judicial and agency appointments held up for months and years, and thousands of hours of public rhetoric and media attacks that were just foul. Ugly.

 

Eight years of this crap. The fact that Obama got anything done at all is one of the strongest tributes to his ability one can imagine.

 

And then you pull this amnesiac bs, like you've been sleeping under a rock for a decade, and post nonsense like that.

[John Cuthber]

Tar,

do you actually red what you write before you post it.

Things like this suggest that you don't.

But the tea party was a reaction to Obama. They didn't get voted in, until Obama asked for laws that were only wanted by his party. It has not been presidential, to not work with your congress, and instead use executive orders to defy the will of congress.

OK, the first sentence (But the tea party was a reaction to Obama.) makes sense but I couldn't even parse the rest f it, never mind understand it.

Since you are trying to put across a viewpoint with which it seems many people disagree, you are doing yourself no favours by being so unclear.

[Ten oz]

.Ten Oz.

 

International terrorism, terrorism without a state, on the scale of Al Qaeda and ISIS is a new thing for the world.

 

If ISIS is not a state, then we should help the governments of the states in which they are operating, defeat them. Like the occupiers in Oregon, you wait them out, then if they don't give up, you go in and arrest them.

 

Pure and simple. If ISIS is a state, then call them a state, and declare war on them, and defeat them. I think we can figure a way to do this. Not easy. They are experts themselves. They are Saddam's best generals. They are a powerful foe and they have a system put together where rape and pillage are part of the reward for the fighters. They are strong and getting stronger. But the generals have to be somewhere. The hidden munitions and equipment have to be somewhere. Under the ground, most likely, but you need to root them out. Capture or kill the leaders, free the sex slaves and the unwilling subjects, and return the countryside to Assad's rule and then ask for a new election. If Assad wins, then he shall continue to be king. Same as if Hilary wins I must accept it, or if Trump wins I must accept it. We should not decide for another country, who their leaders should be. Regime change, I think is allowable if the world votes against a harmful dictator, but the thing should be done fast and sure, and the world should fill the vacuum until the people chose their future. If its just a king like Assad, that is not quite as perfect a leader as we would like to see, we perhaps should not fund a revolution against him, unless we mean to remove him.

 

Boko Haram is revolutionaries fighting against a corrupt establishment...but they need defeating.

 

Bernie Sanders is a revolutionary fighting against a corrupt establishment...but England should not send drones in to take out Bernie.

 

Distinctions can be made, and we can fight and win against our enemies. We can together build and maintain a better world. But we can not do it if Democrats hate Republicans, and Republicans hate democrats.

 

Regards, TAR

house of commons, house of lords, you can be adversaries and still respect each other and figure out the laws you want to follow, and you can all together, still love your queen

I even love your queen and we fought and won a war against the redcoats

Before I address ISIS I must first point out that our most recent exchange on this issue began with you calling Bernie Sanders a pacifist and saying that a pacifist shouldn't be the Commander in Chief. I provided you Sanders positions on war and terrorism. You then complained they are no different than Obama and Hillary but didn't acknowledge being wrong in calling him a pacifist. instead you have just bounced to carrying on about ISIS.

 

Okay, you want us to commit to a large scale boots on the ground mobilzation vs ISIS in Syria which leads to Assad staying in power pending elections. Sound great but you ignore several real world things:

 

Assad - does he want U.S. on the ground in his country? Would he be combative if we went it? Would he allow elections?

Russia - how would they feel about us using force on the ground in Syria to both kill ISIS and strong arm Assad?

Iran - do they want boots on the ground at their border combating ISIS and Assad?

ISIS - will they stand and fight or melt into Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon? Will they just evolve into new terroist groups in those other countries?

[tar]

Overtone,

 

You keep playing the race card, as if republicans that want to repeal Obamacare are doing it because they can't stand that Obama put a black hand on the bible. There are people like that, I have no doubt. I am not one of them. There are good ole boys driving pickups with confederate flags, sure. But they have an equal vote as you do.

 

An equal vote.

 

If they elect a representative that will respect the life of an unborn fetus, or honor the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, or that will work to keep drugs from coming into the county through our border with Mexico, or ask that we not both allow people to work in this country that have overstayed their visas, and allow them to take advantage of our social programs, they must have been helped in the voting, by people who wanted to see those policy objectives, that did NOT even have a pick-up, much less a confederate flag on it. It is not, absolutely not your right to tell the guy he can not fly the confederate flag. Nor are you anywhere near correct to assume that because he is a bigot, that I must be, because I voted for Bush, years before the last 7 years were even envisioned.

 

I have voted for both republicans and democrats for president, and over the last 7 years I have voted for both republicans and democrats for local office, state legislator positions, and for members of the U.S. house and senate. You don't know which of those choices of mine put a bigot into office or kept one out.

 

Certain democrats ALWAYS vote against the rich, against business, against the military, against big oil. The black vote goes almost always to the democrats. The democrats almost always go for policies that would increase government transfer payments to black people and single moms of any color, and the poor, and children and the elderly, provided one does not have the means to provide the good or service to their own family. The taxes that would pay for the programs are paid for by the people that are NOT getting the transfer payments. Someone that works and saves and pays taxes can live next to someone in West Virginia who has better medical coverage, more food on the table, college paid for and be in a better position financially than the gal that is working.

 

Are black people all dependent wards of the state, that only could possibly vote for someone that will take care of them, with white people's money?

 

Maybe. as Maybe as it is that I vote the way I vote, because I am a bigot or a dupe.

 

If a businessman votes to lower his taxes, and a person receiving transfer payments (welfare, foodstamps, free healthcare, disability, medicade, medicare,) votes to increase their transfer payments, then two sides have been chosen. The givers and the takers. If you are suggesting that in order to be a giver, you have to be a rich white bigot, then you are likewise saying that in order to be a democrat you must be a taker.

 

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

For the purposes of this thread, ISIS can not both be a problem for America, and not a problem for America.

 

It matters not, what will work best to defeat them, or what will swell their ranks or lessen their ranks, or whether Bush or Clinton or Bush or Obama pissed off the republican guard, or the Iran guard the most.

 

The real fact is that ISIS is a problem and we don't want them on the planet with us.

Or that ISIS is not a problem and we should let them establish a caliphate.

 

They cannot though be both a big problem and not a problem.

 

Regards, TAR

I personally choose to think of Obama as half white, and I feel toward him as I did toward a half white, half black female gay soldier I befriended in the Army. She was gay because she did not want to have a child that would have to go through what she is going through, getting the hate from the whites for being half black, and the hate from the blacks for being half white.

that is exactly my point in this thread

 

give the other person the benefit of the doubt, and love the half of them that is you and do not hate the half of them that is not

 

every time I mention this understanding of reality and request tolerance and understanding, someone comes up with a reason to hate republicans

 

Really? And I have not won this argument 100 times already?

Edited February 7, 2016 by tar

[Phi for All]

every time I mention this understanding of reality and request tolerance and understanding, someone comes up with a reason to hate republicans

 

The Republican Party. THE PARTY. Stop moving the goalposts. We have listed reasons for why hate is a relevant response to what the party has done, but you can't handle them. You always try to make it personal, so you can trot out a racially motivated anecdote about black people needing white people's money, or how good a friend you are to minorities, and feel you've won.

[tar]

If half of Americans are not like you, they are still, by definition Americans. You gain nothing, as an American in hating them, and the feeling they are taking America from you is as valid as the feeling they might erroneously have that you are taking America from them.

[iNow]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Danth's_Law

Danth's Law states:

“If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly."

The majority of the time, declaring victory is just spin: a last desperate attempt to trick people into believing you came out on top (providing that they don't actually go and read the discussion, of course). Sometimes, the individuals declaring victory may well be convinced that they're right; often they'll have gone into the discussion knowing that they're right and with no possible option that they might be wrong.

[tar]

Phi,

 

I have been in many arguments on this thread where it has been proven how ignorant and wrong a creationist is. This has been used to show how wrong it is to throw gays off of buildings, because the Koran told you so, or how wrong sodemy laws are that let the government into the bedroom of two consenting adults, on the basis of a bible verse.

 

Several years ago I was on a thread where I expressed my displeasure at the attitude of a famous atheist, now departed, that spoke disrespectfully to an audience, that included religious people, and that was talk that was obviously hurting an older woman in the audience. I could see in her face, the pity she was feeling for this guy. Made me embarrassed to be an atheist.

 

Not important to be right, if being right, makes you wrong.

 

If 80 percent of America is perfectly content with their faith, and if the laws and morals of the land are based on the bible, and the teachings of Buddah, and the Koran it is not right to figure yourself right and the 80 percent wrong.

 

You might be right about evolution, and relativity and global warming, but you are wrong about figuring that every good person is like you.

 

Regards, TAR

iNow,

 

Let me ask you this.

 

Do I have a point? That is what would you say, I have been trying to say, and have I said it, or not?

 

Regards, TAR

and iNow, are you insisting that the republican party has destroyed America?

 

Is that not proof that you have lost? according to Danth's law

[Ten oz]

Overtone,

 

You keep playing the race card, as if republicans that want to repeal Obamacare are doing it because they can't stand that Obama put a black hand on the bible. There are people like that, I have no doubt. I am not one of them. There are good ole boys driving pickups with confederate flags, sure. But they have an equal vote as you do.

 

Ten Oz,

 

For the purposes of this thread, ISIS can not both be a problem for America, and not a problem for America.

 

It matters not, what will work best to defeat them, or what will swell their ranks or lessen their ranks, or whether Bush or Clinton or Bush or Obama pissed off the republican guard, or the Iran guard the most.

 

The real fact is that ISIS is a problem and we don't want them on the planet with us.

Or that ISIS is not a problem and we should let them establish a caliphate.

 

They cannot though be both a big problem and not a problem.

 

Regards, TAR

 

TAR, I showed you respect and provided you a response that address several key issues in the war against ISS. Your post addresses none of it. You simply keep saying the world is black and white and ISIS is evil and we must rid the planet of them. You refuse to confront any of the logistical realities of what it may take to accomplish such. Please review post #694 and provide a response with substance.