http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/
He sounds so reasonable.
It will probably be a tough sell for Obama. He's essentially asking the Israelis to give up any opportunity they have to (conventionally) have a direct impact on Iran's nuclear program. This means Obama is going to have to convince Netanyahu that 1) if worst comes to worst, Obama will go to bat for Israel, no matter the domestic and international ramifications and 2) a U.S. strike in the future will be at least as effective as an Israeli strike now would be.
The only way he can do that is promise the Israelis a deadline.
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2012, 01:54:45 PM
He sounds so reasonable.
You would be critical, you Canuck carebear.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2012, 03:19:01 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2012, 01:54:45 PM
He sounds so reasonable.
You would be critical, you Canuck carebear.
Eh? What do you mean?
He sounds reasonable when he's talking about basketball too: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-sports-guy-interview-20120301,0,5952436.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+(L.A.+Times+-+Politics)
Quote from: Kleves on March 02, 2012, 02:44:13 PM
It will probably be a tough sell for Obama. He's essentially asking the Israelis to give up any opportunity they have to (conventionally) have a direct impact on Iran's nuclear program. This means Obama is going to have to convince Netanyahu that 1) if worst comes to worst, Obama will go to bat for Israel, no matter the domestic and international ramifications and 2) a U.S. strike in the future will be at least as effective as an Israeli strike now would be.
Did you read the interview?
The entire point was that Obama made it clear that in the scale of possible outcomes, Nuclear Iran came a distant second to US Bombs Iran. In other words, the US is pretty much stating that they will take military action if necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
I think Obama's point about the danger of proliferation is well made. It is not only about nuclear Iran, but about nuclear Saudi Arabia. And every other country in the region.
What would be really fucking great is if the Republicans could recognize that some issues transcend partisan politics, and this is one of them.
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 03:50:28 PM
What would be really fucking great is if the Republicans could recognize that some issues transcend partisan politics, and this is one of them.
Obama is surrendering to teh mooselimbs.
But hey, Mitt says if he's President, Iran won't have nuclear weapons. And without any explanation of precisely how that's gonna happen, that'll be good enough for the voters.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2012, 04:00:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 03:50:28 PM
What would be really fucking great is if the Republicans could recognize that some issues transcend partisan politics, and this is one of them.
Obama is surrendering to teh mooselimbs.
But hey, Mitt says if he's President, Iran won't have nuclear weapons. And without any explanation of precisely how that's gonna happen, that'll be good enough for the voters.
Yeah, no it won't.
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 04:03:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2012, 04:00:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 03:50:28 PM
What would be really fucking great is if the Republicans could recognize that some issues transcend partisan politics, and this is one of them.
Obama is surrendering to teh mooselimbs.
But hey, Mitt says if he's President, Iran won't have nuclear weapons. And without any explanation of precisely how that's gonna happen, that'll be good enough for the voters.
Yeah, no it won't.
Wanna bet? $10,000!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2012, 04:00:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 03:50:28 PM
What would be really fucking great is if the Republicans could recognize that some issues transcend partisan politics, and this is one of them.
Obama is surrendering to teh mooselimbs.
But hey, Mitt says if he's President, Iran won't have nuclear weapons. And without any explanation of precisely how that's gonna happen ...
Same way Mormons turn dead Jews into Mormons. He will simply say it is so.
QuoteIn an interview with ESPN's Bill Simmons, President Obama talks about how he is able to sneak in watching sports during the day.
"Well, first of all, I don't watch network news or cable news. So in the morning, when I'm working out with Michelle, it's on SportsCenter. This is the one thing that she allows me," Obama told Simmons.
Oh man. "ALLOWS" Mr. President?
Shame. SHAME!
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 03:49:32 PM
The entire point was that Obama made it clear that in the scale of possible outcomes, Nuclear Iran came a distant second to US Bombs Iran. In other words, the US is pretty much stating that they will take military action if necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Yeah, he says that. Now he just has to get Netanyahu to believe it. I mean, would Obama bomb Iran if it meant losing his reelection bid? Would he do it if he thought that it would cause the situation in Iraq/Afghanistan to spiral completely out-of-control? Would he bomb Iran if he thought it would
hurt US interests, even if it would help Israeli interests? Doesn't Obama have to convince Netanyahu that the answer to all of these questions (among others) is 'yes'? Obama can say all the right things, but, in the end, Netanyahu is going to have to trust him enough to put Israel's future in Obama's hands.
I dunno, if I was Iranian I'd be reluctant to gamble that Obama is bluffing - at the least I'd want to know my good neighbour Saddam's opinion on that point. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on March 02, 2012, 06:30:03 PM
I dunno, if I was Iranian I'd be reluctant to gamble that Obama is bluffing - at the least I'd want to know my good neighbour Saddam's opinion on that point. ;)
That's a strange example. Saddam would probably still be in power if Obama was in charge back in 2003.
I think Obama erred in making this threat.
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 03:50:28 PM
What would be really fucking great is if the Republicans could recognize that some issues transcend partisan politics, and this is one of them.
I agree, but I think foreign policy always comes across as reasonably non-partisan. There's a lot more consensus at the top, or so it seems anyway.
And to be fair they do have a foreign leader who's willing to go along with it. One of the reasons both Obama and Clinton administrations ended up hating working with Netanyahu is his willingness to effectively play in American politics to achieve his aims.
QuoteDid you read the interview?
The entire point was that Obama made it clear that in the scale of possible outcomes, Nuclear Iran came a distant second to US Bombs Iran. In other words, the US is pretty much stating that they will take military action if necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
I think Obama's point about the danger of proliferation is well made. It is not only about nuclear Iran, but about nuclear Saudi Arabia. And every other country in the region.
I agree. The anti-proliferation point essentially says that it's in the essential national security interests of the US to stop an Iranian nuke. That's aligning American interests with Israel's to a remarkable degree. The question, I think, isn't whether Obama can convince Netanyahu but whether Netanyahu's willing to be convinced on this.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2012, 07:19:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 03:50:28 PM
What would be really fucking great is if the Republicans could recognize that some issues transcend partisan politics, and this is one of them.
I agree, but I think foreign policy always comes across as reasonably non-partisan. There's a lot more consensus at the top, or so it seems anyway.
Only when planes full of people are flown into building full of more people are connected to Sunni dictators, and anything that could possibly be considered as questioning that is considered cowardice.
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2012, 07:00:15 PM
How so?
Because I think he's bluffing and the mad mullahs are going to call.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2012, 07:39:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2012, 07:00:15 PM
How so?
Because I think he's bluffing and the mad mullahs are going to call.
He might not think he's bluffing though.
Why do we say the Mullahs are mad? Why is it assumed unreasoning, suicidal forces rule in Iran?
Quote from: Lettow77 on March 02, 2012, 08:29:42 PM
Why do we say the Mullahs are mad? Why is it assumed unreasoning, suicidal forces rule in Iran?
Because they're Asian (and thus have diminished capacity for reason) and Muslim (and thus lack the ability to reason).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2012, 09:23:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2012, 08:04:55 PM
You always think that.
This makes no sense Raz.
You always make the assumption that the Democrat will not use force.
He's got you there, Yi.
GOTCHA MOMENT.
GOTCHA MOMENT.
GOTCHA MOMENT.
Quote from: Kleves on March 02, 2012, 06:27:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 03:49:32 PM
The entire point was that Obama made it clear that in the scale of possible outcomes, Nuclear Iran came a distant second to US Bombs Iran. In other words, the US is pretty much stating that they will take military action if necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Yeah, he says that. Now he just has to get Netanyahu to believe it. I mean, would Obama bomb Iran if it meant losing his reelection bid? Would he do it if he thought that it would cause the situation in Iraq/Afghanistan to spiral completely out-of-control? Would he bomb Iran if he thought it would hurt US interests, even if it would help Israeli interests? Doesn't Obama have to convince Netanyahu that the answer to all of these questions (among others) is 'yes'? Obama can say all the right things, but, in the end, Netanyahu is going to have to trust him enough to put Israel's future in Obama's hands.
If Obama thought any of those things were true, he wouldn't make a very public assurance that he would attack Iran rather than allow them to get a bomb.
Is there any more effective way to convince the Israelis that he is serious than a public and unambiguous statement?
I guess you can invent scenarios and then question his resolve under those scenarios - but why? Would he bomb them if it meant losing re-election? How could he know that doing so would lose re-election?
Are you just looking for a reason to be all pissed off at the man? This makes no sense - if in fact you are of the opinion that the US should take military action as a last resort to stop Iran from going nuclear, then how could it be that the US President stating publicly and clearly that we will do so be seen as some kind of negative?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2012, 07:39:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 02, 2012, 07:00:15 PM
How so?
Because I think he's bluffing and the mad mullahs are going to call.
If he is bluffing, then you are correct.
I don't think he is bluffing, because there is no upside to such a bluff, so why make it?
Rather, if he really feels that he would NOT be willing to attack Iran if necessary, then why even try to call Israel off?
I think Obama has pretty much no choice but to go with an attack. If he struck some sort of deal with Iran, would Congress ratify it? Would they fund any obligation the US makes? Probably not. It'll be North Korean Light Water reactor thing all over again. Right now we are going through the motions. The end game is in sight. The covert war has been ratcheting up, which means the Israelis seem to think the Iranians are close. I don't know if the Israelis have the ability to do more then one day worth of bombing. It'll almost certainly require more then one day, so the US will probably have to the heavy lifting.
Quote from: Lettow77 on March 02, 2012, 08:29:42 PM
Why do we say the Mullahs are mad? Why is it assumed unreasoning, suicidal forces rule in Iran?
Cause they consider dynamite a fashion accessory? Or that they use school children as disposable mine clearance devices? And last year some idiot gave the go ahead to assassinate Saudi Ambassador on US soil. This is reckless behavior that indicates to me that they really don't care how many of their people are killed to accomplish their goals.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2012, 01:01:03 AMThis is reckless behavior that indicates to me that they really don't care how many of their people are killed to accomplish their goals.
I'm not sure of the recklessness, unless you mean of other people's lives, and that doesn't necessarily indicate madness though.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2012, 10:42:26 PM
You always make the assumption that the Democrat will not use force.
I've made exactly one prediction so far: no attack on Iran.
I'd be happy to take your disability money if you want to put down a bet.
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 11:54:03 PM
I don't think he is bluffing, because there is no upside to such a bluff, so why make it?
The upside to such a bluff is the same as with any bluff: the opponent folds.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2012, 01:25:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 11:54:03 PM
I don't think he is bluffing, because there is no upside to such a bluff, so why make it?
The upside to such a bluff is the same as with any bluff: the opponent folds.
But he is making the bluff to Israel - they are the target here, the intent is to get them to hold back. What is the upside to getting them to hold back, if there is no intention of going through with an attack on Iran should it become necessary?
If Obama has no intentin of taking military action should it become warranted, then why would he want to discourage Israel from taking that action?
I don't see any reason that makes sense unless you want to assume that Obama really does hate Israel and wouldn't mind seeing their position critically weakened.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2012, 01:23:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2012, 10:42:26 PM
You always make the assumption that the Democrat will not use force.
I've made exactly one prediction so far: no attack on Iran.
I'd be happy to take your disability money if you want to put down a bet.
You already owe me a foot rub. Besides, how wide is the window for "no attack on Iran"?
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 01:42:07 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2012, 01:25:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 11:54:03 PM
I don't think he is bluffing, because there is no upside to such a bluff, so why make it?
The upside to such a bluff is the same as with any bluff: the opponent folds.
But he is making the bluff to Israel - they are the target here, the intent is to get them to hold back. What is the upside to getting them to hold back, if there is no intention of going through with an attack on Iran should it become necessary?
If Obama has no intentin of taking military action should it become warranted, then why would he want to discourage Israel from taking that action?
I don't see any reason that makes sense unless you want to assume that Obama really does hate Israel and wouldn't mind seeing their position critically weakened.
Obama is afraid that an attack by Israel would cause a persian gulf crisis that would have oil prices going through the roof, sinking his already slim reelection chance. Bluffing Israel into inaction until after the election makes perfect sense to Obama.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 02:15:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 01:42:07 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2012, 01:25:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 11:54:03 PM
I don't think he is bluffing, because there is no upside to such a bluff, so why make it?
The upside to such a bluff is the same as with any bluff: the opponent folds.
But he is making the bluff to Israel - they are the target here, the intent is to get them to hold back. What is the upside to getting them to hold back, if there is no intention of going through with an attack on Iran should it become necessary?
If Obama has no intentin of taking military action should it become warranted, then why would he want to discourage Israel from taking that action?
I don't see any reason that makes sense unless you want to assume that Obama really does hate Israel and wouldn't mind seeing their position critically weakened.
Obama is afraid that an attack by Israel would cause a persian gulf crisis that would have oil prices going through the roof, sinking his already slim reelection chance. Bluffing Israel into inaction until after the election makes perfect sense to Obama.
Partisan bullshit.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 03, 2012, 01:17:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2012, 01:01:03 AMThis is reckless behavior that indicates to me that they really don't care how many of their people are killed to accomplish their goals.
I'm not sure of the recklessness, unless you mean of other people's lives, and that doesn't necessarily indicate madness though.
The assassination attempt was extremely reckless. That's how wars get started. Their efforts against the Israelis in India and Georgia have shown incompetence (which scary on it's own). A country that lionizes people who kill themselves to harm their enemies are bit on the kooky side. This kind of mindset often works its way up. Take Japan in WWII. This was a country that essentially committed suicide. The fact they are irrational or at least have irrational elements in their slipshod government is enough to keep them from having nukes. There are several other reasons that Obama touched on. Anyone one of these is sufficient.
Personally I've lost hope in a peaceful solution after the Iranian government put down those protests a few year back. We heard how how the youth in the country was anti-Tehran and we didn't want to alienate them. What ever their feelings are, they don't have the power to effect change.
I'm predicting that we'll see how the new sanctions work for a few months but toward the end of the summer overt violence will breakout. God only knows what happens then. Hopefully it won't lead to full scale war, but that's a risk that must be taken.
The biggest problem is that Iran actually does have good reason to have nukes. They can't be bullied, and nobody can touch them if they have nuclear weapons. They also have major trump card in regional politics. On the other hand, the US has a very good reason to not want Iran to have the weapons. In a sense both sides are acting in their own best interest. That's the key ingredient of a war.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 02:15:12 AM
Obama is afraid that an attack by Israel would cause a persian gulf crisis that would have oil prices going through the roof, sinking his already slim reelection chance. Bluffing Israel into inaction until after the election makes perfect sense to Obama.
What was Bush's approval rating at the beginning of the Iraq war?
Has Obama promised that Iran has WMDs yet?
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 02:17:35 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 02:15:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 01:42:07 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2012, 01:25:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 11:54:03 PM
I don't think he is bluffing, because there is no upside to such a bluff, so why make it?
The upside to such a bluff is the same as with any bluff: the opponent folds.
But he is making the bluff to Israel - they are the target here, the intent is to get them to hold back. What is the upside to getting them to hold back, if there is no intention of going through with an attack on Iran should it become necessary?
If Obama has no intentin of taking military action should it become warranted, then why would he want to discourage Israel from taking that action?
I don't see any reason that makes sense unless you want to assume that Obama really does hate Israel and wouldn't mind seeing their position critically weakened.
Obama is afraid that an attack by Israel would cause a persian gulf crisis that would have oil prices going through the roof, sinking his already slim reelection chance. Bluffing Israel into inaction until after the election makes perfect sense to Obama.
Partisan bullshit.
Hey, if a fatso with a squeaky voice says so, it must be true.
Btw, what's up with Republicans being fat, ugly and sounding like bitches? I mean, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Hansmeister. They all look like they must have been really bullied at school. Does this victimization create future Republicans or are they picked on because already there is something wrong with them during their early years and other kids see that?
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 02:17:35 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 02:15:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 01:42:07 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2012, 01:25:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 11:54:03 PM
I don't think he is bluffing, because there is no upside to such a bluff, so why make it?
The upside to such a bluff is the same as with any bluff: the opponent folds.
But he is making the bluff to Israel - they are the target here, the intent is to get them to hold back. What is the upside to getting them to hold back, if there is no intention of going through with an attack on Iran should it become necessary?
If Obama has no intentin of taking military action should it become warranted, then why would he want to discourage Israel from taking that action?
I don't see any reason that makes sense unless you want to assume that Obama really does hate Israel and wouldn't mind seeing their position critically weakened.
Obama is afraid that an attack by Israel would cause a persian gulf crisis that would have oil prices going through the roof, sinking his already slim reelection chance. Bluffing Israel into inaction until after the election makes perfect sense to Obama.
Partisan bullshit.
You can't argue with that logical reasoning.
Btw, I'm not a partisan, I'm an ideologue, there is a big difference between the two.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 03:19:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 02:17:35 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 02:15:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 01:42:07 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2012, 01:25:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 11:54:03 PM
I don't think he is bluffing, because there is no upside to such a bluff, so why make it?
The upside to such a bluff is the same as with any bluff: the opponent folds.
But he is making the bluff to Israel - they are the target here, the intent is to get them to hold back. What is the upside to getting them to hold back, if there is no intention of going through with an attack on Iran should it become necessary?
If Obama has no intentin of taking military action should it become warranted, then why would he want to discourage Israel from taking that action?
I don't see any reason that makes sense unless you want to assume that Obama really does hate Israel and wouldn't mind seeing their position critically weakened.
Obama is afraid that an attack by Israel would cause a persian gulf crisis that would have oil prices going through the roof, sinking his already slim reelection chance. Bluffing Israel into inaction until after the election makes perfect sense to Obama.
Partisan bullshit.
You can't argue with that logical reasoning.
It isn't logical reasoning, it is recognizing that logical reasoning won't do any good, because you are a partisan.
And your right, there really isn't any arguing with it.
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 03:20:51 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 03:19:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 02:17:35 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 02:15:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 01:42:07 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2012, 01:25:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 11:54:03 PM
I don't think he is bluffing, because there is no upside to such a bluff, so why make it?
The upside to such a bluff is the same as with any bluff: the opponent folds.
But he is making the bluff to Israel - they are the target here, the intent is to get them to hold back. What is the upside to getting them to hold back, if there is no intention of going through with an attack on Iran should it become necessary?
If Obama has no intentin of taking military action should it become warranted, then why would he want to discourage Israel from taking that action?
I don't see any reason that makes sense unless you want to assume that Obama really does hate Israel and wouldn't mind seeing their position critically weakened.
Obama is afraid that an attack by Israel would cause a persian gulf crisis that would have oil prices going through the roof, sinking his already slim reelection chance. Bluffing Israel into inaction until after the election makes perfect sense to Obama.
Partisan bullshit.
You can't argue with that logical reasoning.
It isn't logical reasoning, it is recognizing that logical reasoning won't do any good, because you are a partisan.
And your right, there really isn't any arguing with it.
Ha, I guess name calling is all you have left wen you can't win an argument (-> see Martinus).
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 03:19:24 AM
Btw, I'm not a partisan, I'm an ideologue, there is a big difference between the two.
Both are intractable.
Quote from: citizen k on March 03, 2012, 03:25:31 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 03:19:24 AM
Btw, I'm not a partisan, I'm an ideologue, there is a big difference between the two.
Both are intractable.
An ideologue is principled, a partisan is opportunistic.
Just think of all those partisan hacks who attacked Bush for 8 years about Gitmo, warantless wiretaps, and other GWOT-related stuff who have gone completely quiet on those topics since Obama was inaugurated. If you only knew the JR of the Bush years you would think he was a civil libertarian, now we know he is just a partisan hack who was willing to side with Al Qaeda against his bigger enemy bushitler.
My positions are completely consistent across the board, I have not criticized any anti-terror measure taken by Obama, only those he took to weaken our efforts (as, indeed, I was critical of Bush's "catch-and-release" of Gitmo detainees, for example). I was also critical of Bush for failing to attack Iran, just as I am critical of Obama, and there is nothing in Obama's past behavior that given me confidence that he will do anything about it now.
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 01:42:07 AM
But he is making the bluff to Israel - they are the target here, the intent is to get them to hold back. What is the upside to getting them to hold back, if there is no intention of going through with an attack on Iran should it become necessary?
If Obama has no intentin of taking military action should it become warranted, then why would he want to discourage Israel from taking that action?
I don't see any reason that makes sense unless you want to assume that Obama really does hate Israel and wouldn't mind seeing their position critically weakened.
He is not bluffing Israel, because he has not threatened them with repercussions if they attack. He has in effect given Israel a US guarantee that Iran will not get the bomb.
The upside to holding Israel back is something along the lines Square Head described--no shit storm in the Persian Gulf. The upside of bluffing Iran is the hope they will fold.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2012, 02:08:39 AM
You already owe me a foot rub. Besides, how wide is the window for "no attack on Iran"?
How wide would you like it to be?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2012, 03:43:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2012, 02:08:39 AM
You already owe me a foot rub. Besides, how wide is the window for "no attack on Iran"?
How wide would you like it to be?
I dunno, what exactly would I get if I won. Where does your income come from?
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 03:38:31 AM
Quote from: citizen k on March 03, 2012, 03:25:31 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 03:19:24 AM
Btw, I'm not a partisan, I'm an ideologue, there is a big difference between the two.
Both are intractable.
An ideologue is principled, a partisan is opportunistic.
Just think of all those partisan hacks who attacked Bush for 8 years about Gitmo, warantless wiretaps, and other GWOT-related stuff who have gone completely quiet on those topics since Obama was inaugurated. If you only knew the JR of the Bush years you would think he was a civil libertarian, now we know he is just a partisan hack who was willing to side with Al Qaeda against his bigger enemy bushitler.
My positions are completely consistent across the board, I have not criticized any anti-terror measure taken by Obama, only those he took to weaken our efforts (as, indeed, I was critical of Bush's "catch-and-release" of Gitmo detainees, for example). I was also critical of Bush for failing to attack Iran, just as I am critical of Obama, and there is nothing in Obama's past behavior that given me confidence that he will do anything about it now.
Or those partisan hack that critizized Congress during the Bush adminstration for being obstructionist. Oh, wait. That
was you.
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 11:51:43 PM
If Obama thought any of those things were true, he wouldn't make a very public assurance that he would attack Iran rather than allow them to get a bomb.
I'm not sure that follows. Obama may believe that the sanctions will work, and that an Israeli attack at this point would screw everything up. In such a case, he might say that he's willing to attack, but believe that he will never have to actually do so. But that's not even my point; all I've been saying is that Obama will have a tough task convincing Netanyahu to put Israel's fate in his (Obama's) hands.
QuoteIs there any more effective way to convince the Israelis that he is serious than a public and unambiguous statement?
Well, that's just the point, isn't it? Obama can say that, but he's going to have to get the Israeli's to
trust him.
QuoteI guess you can invent scenarios and then question his resolve under those scenarios - but why?
Because don't the Israelis have to do the same thing? Obama is going to have to satisfy them that there's no realistic scenario where he leaves them hanging out to dry.
QuoteAre you just looking for a reason to be all pissed off at the man? This makes no sense - if in fact you are of the opinion that the US should take military action as a last resort to stop Iran from going nuclear, then how could it be that the US President stating publicly and clearly that we will do so be seen as some kind of negative?
Whoever said it was a negative, or criticized Obama? I think an Israeli attack at this point would probably do more harm than good - I'm not sure that Israel has the capability to seriously damage Iran's nuclear program (presumably the US still does). So I'm not even disagreeing with what he's doing; my whole point has been that he has a tough sell ahead of him because this is an existential issue for Israel.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 02:15:12 AMObama is afraid that an attack by Israel would cause a persian gulf crisis that would have oil prices going through the roof, sinking his already slim reelection chance. Bluffing Israel into inaction until after the election makes perfect sense to Obama.
Hey Hansie, are you are Romney guy or a Santorum guy? Or do you favour someone else?
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 02:17:35 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 02:15:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 01:42:07 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2012, 01:25:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 02, 2012, 11:54:03 PM
I don't think he is bluffing, because there is no upside to such a bluff, so why make it?
The upside to such a bluff is the same as with any bluff: the opponent folds.
But he is making the bluff to Israel - they are the target here, the intent is to get them to hold back. What is the upside to getting them to hold back, if there is no intention of going through with an attack on Iran should it become necessary?
If Obama has no intentin of taking military action should it become warranted, then why would he want to discourage Israel from taking that action?
I don't see any reason that makes sense unless you want to assume that Obama really does hate Israel and wouldn't mind seeing their position critically weakened.
Obama is afraid that an attack by Israel would cause a persian gulf crisis that would have oil prices going through the roof, sinking his already slim reelection chance. Bluffing Israel into inaction until after the election makes perfect sense to Obama.
Partisan bullshit.
When did you become a liberal?
You KNOW Obama fucking hates Israel, almost as much as he hates America, and see Israel as an imperialist/colonialist enterprise.
Obama wants socialism in America, and if we let him, he will DESTROY this country.
Make no mistake, Obama ain't muslim, but he is atheist-socialist and subscribe to the ideology of liberation.
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2012, 09:13:28 PM
When did you become a liberal?
You KNOW Obama fucking hates Israel, almost as much as he hates America, and see Israel as an imperialist/colonialist enterprise.
Obama wants socialism in America, and if we let him, he will DESTROY this country.
Make no mistake, Obama ain't muslim, but he is atheist-socialist and subscribe to the ideology of liberation.
I thought you weren't going to post drunk any more.
If I were you, I'd stick to the moon landing conspiracy. You have far more credibility on that issue than you do foaming at the mouth over a man you seem to know nothing whatsoever about.
Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2012, 09:17:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2012, 09:13:28 PM
When did you become a liberal?
You KNOW Obama fucking hates Israel, almost as much as he hates America, and see Israel as an imperialist/colonialist enterprise.
Obama wants socialism in America, and if we let him, he will DESTROY this country.
Make no mistake, Obama ain't muslim, but he is atheist-socialist and subscribe to the ideology of liberation.
I thought you weren't going to post drunk any more.
If I were you, I'd stick to the moon landing conspiracy. You have far more credibility on that issue than you do foaming at the mouth over a man you seem to know nothing whatsoever about.
.
I know a lot about Obama. I juyst need to look at the state of the US Army today.
No money for training, 200 rounds per machinegun to qualify our gunners, no match ammo for sniper rifles whatsoever, very limited ammount of blanks for tactical exercises, repair orders now take months waiting for spare parts, both for weapons and vehicles, etc.
These days we make noise with our mouths to simulate blanks: "Bugbugbuget cuts cutscutscuts!!".
This is how we are training. Never seen anything like this before. You don't fuck around with training.
Whatever we don't train today realistically, we will pay for with blood later on when we deploy.
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 02:17:35 AM
Partisan bullshit.
Just to note Jeffrey Goldberg (who did the Obama interview) had a good line on this on Twitter. As he put it 'If Obama publicly circumcised himself and became a Lubavitcher, some on the right would still call him an Israel-hater'. Seemed apt :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 03, 2012, 09:44:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2012, 02:17:35 AM
Partisan bullshit.
Just to note Jeffrey Goldberg (who did the Obama interview) had a good line on this on Twitter. As he put it 'If Obama publicly circumcised himself and became a Lubavitcher, some on the right would still call him an Israel-hater'. Seemed apt :lol:
You do realize many Chabad Lubavitch members are anti-israeli, right?
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2012, 09:50:19 PM
You do realize many Chabad Lubavitch members are anti-israeli, right?
Yes. Some are. I think Goldberg meant the ones who aren't.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 03, 2012, 09:54:23 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2012, 09:50:19 PM
You do realize many Chabad Lubavitch members are anti-israeli, right?
Yes. Some are. I think Goldberg meant the ones who aren't.
I think Goldberg didn't know what the fuck he was talking about, like most liberal american jews.
Talk about partisan.
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2012, 09:57:48 PM
I think Goldberg didn't know what the fuck he was talking about, like most liberal american jews.
Talk about partisan.
Okay. I don't think you know a great deal about him if you think he's entirely ignorant, simply liberal or like most 'liberal American Jews'.
Edit: He is also a superb journalist. His earlier Atlantic coverpiece on Pakistan was brilliant.
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2012, 09:28:22 PM
I know a lot about Obama. I juyst need to look at the state of the US Army today.
No money for training, 200 rounds per machinegun to qualify our gunners, no match ammo for sniper rifles whatsoever, very limited ammount of blanks for tactical exercises, repair orders now take months waiting for spare parts, both for weapons and vehicles, etc.
These days we make noise with our mouths to simulate blanks: "Bugbugbuget cuts cutscutscuts!!".
This is how we are training. Never seen anything like this before. You don't fuck around with training.
Whatever we don't train today realistically, we will pay for with blood later on when we deploy.
Who are the ones bitching about spending in Washington? It's not the Dems... You've already shown what you know about Obama when you lifted some false quotes from one of his books. Think on that for a moment. Someone who doesn't like Obama thought so lowly of people like you that they attempted to trick you into hating the man by writing lies and claiming that they are in Obama's book. That person, whoever he is may be, hates Obama, but he holds you in utter contempt. He fooled you and made you look like an idiot. And knowing that, you are still doing what he wants you to. Are you going to continue to be some tool for people who hate you?
Raz, the man is a big goverment commie, for high taxes and against free enterprise.
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2012, 10:08:42 PM
Raz, the man is a big goverment commie, for high taxes and against free enterprise.
Says who? His enemies? The people who want to trick you? And higher taxes is what you need. That's where the money for your training comes from. It's not like the Army is making a profit. Listening to what the GOP says about Obama is like listening to Hamas says about Israel.
Quote from: Jacob on March 03, 2012, 05:43:25 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 02:15:12 AMObama is afraid that an attack by Israel would cause a persian gulf crisis that would have oil prices going through the roof, sinking his already slim reelection chance. Bluffing Israel into inaction until after the election makes perfect sense to Obama.
Hey Hansie, are you are Romney guy or a Santorum guy? Or do you favour someone else?
I don't like anyone in the field. Romney is a competent manager but doesn't have any fixed principles, I doubt he has a strong enough mooring to address our serious structural problems. Santorum is better on that front, but has the wrong priorities for these times, and lacks any observable management skills.
Romney will most likely be the nominee given the GOP tradition of always nominating the person considered next in line, and given that Romney is strongest where Obama is weakest he is also the most likely to win the election in November: Romney has great management talent, while Obama is incompetent; Romney is non-ideological, while Obama is an extremist; Romney is relatively modest (for a politician), while Obama is delusional (This week he compared himself favorably to Ghandi and Nelson Mandela, a few weeks ago he thought he was greater than Lincoln and FDR).
The US needs a transformative President, but it looks like it won't happen this election cycle around.
Quote from: Martinus on March 03, 2012, 03:05:47 AM
Hey, if a fatso with a squeaky voice says so, it must be true.
Btw, what's up with Republicans being fat, ugly and sounding like bitches? I mean, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Hansmeister. They all look like they must have been really bullied at school. Does this victimization create future Republicans or are they picked on because already there is something wrong with them during their early years and other kids see that?
They get married young and let themselves go.
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2012, 09:28:22 PM
I know a lot about Obama. I juyst need to look at the state of the US Army today.
No money for training, 200 rounds per machinegun to qualify our gunners, no match ammo for sniper rifles whatsoever, very limited ammount of blanks for tactical exercises, repair orders now take months waiting for spare parts, both for weapons and vehicles, etc.
These days we make noise with our mouths to simulate blanks: "Bugbugbuget cuts cutscutscuts!!".
This is how we are training. Never seen anything like this before. You don't fuck around with training.
Whatever we don't train today realistically, we will pay for with blood later on when we deploy.
Army leadership is incompetent. Film at 11.
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2012, 09:28:22 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 03, 2012, 09:17:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2012, 09:13:28 PM
When did you become a liberal?
You KNOW Obama fucking hates Israel, almost as much as he hates America, and see Israel as an imperialist/colonialist enterprise.
Obama wants socialism in America, and if we let him, he will DESTROY this country.
Make no mistake, Obama ain't muslim, but he is atheist-socialist and subscribe to the ideology of liberation.
I thought you weren't going to post drunk any more.
If I were you, I'd stick to the moon landing conspiracy. You have far more credibility on that issue than you do foaming at the mouth over a man you seem to know nothing whatsoever about.
.
I know a lot about Obama. I juyst need to look at the state of the US Army today.
No money for training, 200 rounds per machinegun to qualify our gunners, no match ammo for sniper rifles whatsoever, very limited ammount of blanks for tactical exercises, repair orders now take months waiting for spare parts, both for weapons and vehicles, etc.
These days we make noise with our mouths to simulate blanks: "Bugbugbuget cuts cutscutscuts!!".
This is how we are training. Never seen anything like this before. You don't fuck around with training.
Whatever we don't train today realistically, we will pay for with blood later on when we deploy.
You're just going to have to get used to living in the 21st century. The army isn't really a priority anymore, and you guys will have to get used to not just having unlimited amounts of money shoveled at you.
Quote from: Neil on March 04, 2012, 10:06:18 AM
You're just going to have to get used to living in the 21st century. The army isn't really a priority anymore, and you guys will have to get used to not just having unlimited amounts of money shoveled at you.
You gotta admit that spending money on people who think the noise "Bugbugbuget" sounds like weapons firing blanks is kinda pointless. I'm not surprised the Army doesn't trust people like that with even blank ammo.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 03:19:24 AM
Btw, I'm not a partisan, I'm an ideologue, there is a big difference between the two.
The C & D's in the mail.
Quote from: citizen k on March 03, 2012, 03:25:31 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 03:19:24 AM
Btw, I'm not a partisan, I'm an ideologue, there is a big difference between the two.
Both are intractable.
Untrue. I've been tracted. :(
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 04, 2012, 12:58:50 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 03, 2012, 05:43:25 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 02:15:12 AMObama is afraid that an attack by Israel would cause a persian gulf crisis that would have oil prices going through the roof, sinking his already slim reelection chance. Bluffing Israel into inaction until after the election makes perfect sense to Obama.
Hey Hansie, are you are Romney guy or a Santorum guy? Or do you favour someone else?
I don't like anyone in the field. Romney is a competent manager but doesn't have any fixed principles, I doubt he has a strong enough mooring to address our serious structural problems. Santorum is better on that front, but has the wrong priorities for these times, and lacks any observable management skills.
Romney will most likely be the nominee given the GOP tradition of always nominating the person considered next in line, and given that Romney is strongest where Obama is weakest he is also the most likely to win the election in November: Romney has great management talent, while Obama is incompetent; Romney is non-ideological, while Obama is an extremist; Romney is relatively modest (for a politician), while Obama is delusional (This week he compared himself favorably to Ghandi and Nelson Mandela, a few weeks ago he thought he was greater than Lincoln and FDR).
The US needs a transformative President, but it looks like it won't happen this election cycle around.
Just out of curiosity, what do you want to transform the US into?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 04, 2012, 08:22:03 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 04, 2012, 12:58:50 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 03, 2012, 05:43:25 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 03, 2012, 02:15:12 AMObama is afraid that an attack by Israel would cause a persian gulf crisis that would have oil prices going through the roof, sinking his already slim reelection chance. Bluffing Israel into inaction until after the election makes perfect sense to Obama.
Hey Hansie, are you are Romney guy or a Santorum guy? Or do you favour someone else?
I don't like anyone in the field. Romney is a competent manager but doesn't have any fixed principles, I doubt he has a strong enough mooring to address our serious structural problems. Santorum is better on that front, but has the wrong priorities for these times, and lacks any observable management skills.
Romney will most likely be the nominee given the GOP tradition of always nominating the person considered next in line, and given that Romney is strongest where Obama is weakest he is also the most likely to win the election in November: Romney has great management talent, while Obama is incompetent; Romney is non-ideological, while Obama is an extremist; Romney is relatively modest (for a politician), while Obama is delusional (This week he compared himself favorably to Ghandi and Nelson Mandela, a few weeks ago he thought he was greater than Lincoln and FDR).
The US needs a transformative President, but it looks like it won't happen this election cycle around.
Just out of curiosity, what do you want to transform the US into?
My first priority would be to simply keep the US from going bankrupt, something that was a long-range problem, but has been turned into a short-range problem by the current administration. To achive that you need to replace the current tax system with a much simpler one focus on raising the revenue needed to run the government instead of getting the people to dance like marionettes in order for them to keep their money. You will have to end the entitlement culture that promises something for nothing by stealing from future generations (i.e. the present value of any future entitlement would have to be immediately accounted for, you know, as is required to by law for every corporation in the country).
Those two things will have to be prioritized above everything else. The Democrats in Congress have proven unfit to govern by outright refusing to even propose a budget for three years running in direct violation of federal law. The WH has projected massive deficits as far as the eye can see, even under the impropably optimistic and unrealistic assumption they use to game the system, while refusing to address the deficits at all (Obama's deficit reduction proposal last year actual would've increased the deficit). The Democrats have proven to be reactionary defendants of the entitlement state, wedden to the failed system and committed to ever expanding it without serious reform. As Margaret Thatcher once said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. We are rapidly approaching that state. The shocking thing is the completely head in the sand approach the Democrats are taking to this. It is pretty obvious that voting for the Democrats today is voting to go the way of Greece.
The problem with both Romney and Santorum is that I don't see either one fixing this, at best the will take measures around the edges that will stave off ultimate collapse for a little longer. Of course they country might simply not be ready yet, which is the sad part. Rep. Paul Ryan seems the only senior political figure who really grasps the enormity of what we're confronting today.
As far as the other candidates, Gingrich is a philosopher with ADHD and
Fred Astaire Ron Paul a crank.
Wait, we are the world's most powerful country, with the world's largest economy. That doesn't sound like a failed system. If you want to balance the budget, pay your goddamn taxes. You need to ditch the magical idea that paying less in taxes increases revenue. But if you want states like North Carolina to stop leaching from states like New York, be my guest. As a federal employee maybe you could take a pay cut as well.
Is bankruptcy a short-term problem for the US? I rather think not.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 12:43:13 AM
Wait, we are the world's most powerful country, with the world's largest economy. That doesn't sound like a failed system.
It could be, if the success isn't sustainable.
QuoteIf you want to balance the budget, pay your goddamn taxes. You need to ditch the magical idea that paying less in taxes increases revenue.
I think he said 'simplify taxes', not 'cut taxes'. Nobody sane believes that cutting taxes any further would help the US as a whole, although some wannabe robber barons and people who have fallen victim to detaxer scam artists like to hold out for that sort of thing. Actually, Canada just sent a detaxer to jail, because they were too crazy to be allowed to run free.
QuoteBut if you want states like North Carolina to stop leaching from states like New York, be my guest. As a federal employee maybe you could take a pay cut as well.
Or maybe they could just euthanize you, seeing as you're a worthless drain on the system. Thinly-veiled personal attacks are fun, and allow you to blame other people for everything that is wrong with society. Your comment is stricken as non-responsive.
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 01:03:57 AM
Is bankruptcy a short-term problem for the US? I rather think not.
According to the CBO on the current path they don't see us capable of financing our deficits past 2023.
Tax increases will solve that.
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 01:21:56 AM
Tax increases will solve that.
Nope, because our entitlement spending is spiraling out of control, and American are incredible resistant to paying more in taxes, like the greeks. If you look back over the past 60 years tax revenue as a share of GDP was remarkable stable, despite huge swings in tax rates. Higher tax rates have generally simply resulted in either slower growth or increased tax avoidance, or both.
Alright, then America will go bankrupt, and there's nothing that can be done.
Americans payed more taxes in the past, and they can do so again. "I don't want to pay more taxes" is not a good excuse. You need to stop enabling these tax protesters and the like.
But then, you and and the rest of the GOP don't care about debt or deficit, do you? It's only a useful club to beat Obama with. You had years when you could have done something. Instead Bush and the GOP congress racked up enormous debt. Why should we trust any Republican not to do it again?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 01:52:48 AM
Americans payed more taxes in the past, and they can do so again. "I don't want to pay more taxes" is not a good excuse. You need to stop enabling these tax protesters and the like.
But then, you and and the rest of the GOP don't care about debt or deficit, do you? It's only a useful club to beat Obama with. You had years when you could have done something. Instead Bush and the GOP congress racked up enormous debt. Why should we trust any Republican not to do it again?
But Americans didn't pay more taxes, that's the point. They might have had higher tax rates, but that didn't translate into higher taxes. Taxes paid have averaged around 18.6 percent, with deviations mainly cause by the economic cycles, not changes in tax rate. The big change over time has been that the deviations have increased as the US tax system has become more and more progressive.
Debt under Bush decreased as a share of GDP, since it grew at a rate less than economic growth. The only growth in entitlement spending was the prescription drug benefit, which unusual for DC came in far below expectation (due to its market based approach). As originally conceived it would have actually reduced long-term Medicare costs since the prescription benefits were only available to those seniors who enrolled in less expensive managed care plans, not to those in the pricey fee-for-services plan. Alas, in order to get enough Democrats on board in the Senate that limitation was lifted at the last moment before passage, driving up the overall cost. Outside of war spending discretionary spending rose relatively moderately over the entire tenure of the Bush administration. I wish they had been more conservative, but Bush was hardly reckless in their approach, the same ca not be said for the completely insane approach the Democrats have been using for the last few years: No budgeting, and massive expansion of both entitlement spending and discretionary spending. Due to the baby boomer bubble the US already faced some challenges in future entitlement obligation, the Democrats went completely insane and cause a massive expansion of an already unsustainable entitlement system.
Indeed, the reason the Democrats have refused to pass a budget for three years is because the law requires the use of CBO numbers in their projections and theire was no way to sex up the numbers under CBO to not make it look like a complete train wreck. Since the WH is under no such limitation they can and do simply assume ridiculous future growth and spending revisions to make their budget look even partially plausible.
Hans and Raz are remarkably the same kind of guy when it coms to politics: choose a side, study the memo on what that means, and follow it like gospel in "debates". They just happened to choose different sides, probably because of the source of their income.
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2012, 04:20:28 AM
They just happened to choose different sides, probably because of the source of their income.
:unsure:
Quote from: The Brain on March 05, 2012, 04:21:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2012, 04:20:28 AM
They just happened to choose different sides, probably because of the source of their income.
:unsure:
Hans being a military guy, more prone to the fascist-leaning enviroment.
I assume Raz is receiving some kind of disability, or similar thingie after his condition, would fit well his leftist leanings.
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2012, 04:27:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 05, 2012, 04:21:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2012, 04:20:28 AM
They just happened to choose different sides, probably because of the source of their income.
:unsure:
Hans being a military guy, more prone to the fascist-leaning enviroment.
I assume Raz is receiving some kind of disability, or similar thingie after his condition, would fit well his leftist leanings.
They both get their money from working people in the private sector.
Quote from: The Brain on March 05, 2012, 04:31:04 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2012, 04:27:44 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 05, 2012, 04:21:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2012, 04:20:28 AM
They just happened to choose different sides, probably because of the source of their income.
:unsure:
Hans being a military guy, more prone to the fascist-leaning enviroment.
I assume Raz is receiving some kind of disability, or similar thingie after his condition, would fit well his leftist leanings.
They both get their money from working people in the private sector.
Yeah but their kind is seldom aware of this on a sufficiently conscious level, so it cannot play a sufficiently important part in developing their political views.
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2012, 04:20:28 AM
Hans and Raz are remarkably the same kind of guy when it coms to politics: choose a side, study the memo on what that means, and follow it like gospel in "debates". They just happened to choose different sides, probably because of the source of their income
It is one of the more amusing 'tard fights we see here. Two men going into a battle of wits completely unarmed.
Not that they lack good points; they just don't know how to tell the difference between their good points and their asses.
Bet that makes sitting down hard.
Quote from: grumbler on March 05, 2012, 07:34:28 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2012, 04:20:28 AM
Hans and Raz are remarkably the same kind of guy when it coms to politics: choose a side, study the memo on what that means, and follow it like gospel in "debates". They just happened to choose different sides, probably because of the source of their income
It is one of the more amusing 'tard fights we see here. Two men going into a battle of wits completely unarmed.
Not that they lack good points; they just don't know how to tell the difference between their good points and their asses.
Better to go into the pit swinging then be the coward who sits on the sidelines throwing petty barbs. What do you actually stand for Grumbler? As far as I can tell, nothing. Perhaps you can enlighten us all and tell us where you stand. What are your beliefs?
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 05, 2012, 02:27:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 01:52:48 AM
Americans payed more taxes in the past, and they can do so again. "I don't want to pay more taxes" is not a good excuse. You need to stop enabling these tax protesters and the like.
But then, you and and the rest of the GOP don't care about debt or deficit, do you? It's only a useful club to beat Obama with. You had years when you could have done something. Instead Bush and the GOP congress racked up enormous debt. Why should we trust any Republican not to do it again?
But Americans didn't pay more taxes, that's the point. They might have had higher tax rates, but that didn't translate into higher taxes. Taxes paid have averaged around 18.6 percent, with deviations mainly cause by the economic cycles, not changes in tax rate. The big change over time has been that the deviations have increased as the US tax system has become more and more progressive.
Debt under Bush decreased as a share of GDP, since it grew at a rate less than economic growth. The only growth in entitlement spending was the prescription drug benefit, which unusual for DC came in far below expectation (due to its market based approach). As originally conceived it would have actually reduced long-term Medicare costs since the prescription benefits were only available to those seniors who enrolled in less expensive managed care plans, not to those in the pricey fee-for-services plan. Alas, in order to get enough Democrats on board in the Senate that limitation was lifted at the last moment before passage, driving up the overall cost. Outside of war spending discretionary spending rose relatively moderately over the entire tenure of the Bush administration. I wish they had been more conservative, but Bush was hardly reckless in their approach, the same ca not be said for the completely insane approach the Democrats have been using for the last few years: No budgeting, and massive expansion of both entitlement spending and discretionary spending. Due to the baby boomer bubble the US already faced some challenges in future entitlement obligation, the Democrats went completely insane and cause a massive expansion of an already unsustainable entitlement system.
Indeed, the reason the Democrats have refused to pass a budget for three years is because the law requires the use of CBO numbers in their projections and theire was no way to sex up the numbers under CBO to not make it look like a complete train wreck. Since the WH is under no such limitation they can and do simply assume ridiculous future growth and spending revisions to make their budget look even partially plausible.
Pure nonsense. Prove that people never paid anymore taxes then. And blaming the failures of Bush's medicare plan on the Dems is laughable. Show some numbers to prove your points.
Still, tax avoidance would be less of a problem with a simplified tax code, as would tax evasion. You'd have all those IRS types that would have to be put to work somhow.
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 11:05:10 AM
Still, tax avoidance would be less of a problem with a simplified tax code, as would tax evasion. You'd have all those IRS types that would have to be put to work somhow.
IRS is often underfunded. We should put bounties for tax cheats. The IRS guy that catches him gets a percentage. Now that's how to run government like a business.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 11:07:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 11:05:10 AM
Still, tax avoidance would be less of a problem with a simplified tax code, as would tax evasion. You'd have all those IRS types that would have to be put to work somhow.
IRS is often underfunded. We should put bounties for tax cheats. The IRS guy that catches him gets a percentage. Now that's how to run government like a business.
On the other hand, if the tax system becomes simpler, than the IRS won't be underfunded anymore, because their jobs get easier.
No, it's intentionally underfunded. Because GOPtards hate it. If you lowered the operating costs, they'd lower the funding further.
How in the fuck did this thread get on taxes? :lol:
How many ADHD kids does it take to change a light bulb.
Wanna go bike riding.
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 11:27:05 AM
On the other hand, if the tax system becomes simpler, than the IRS won't be underfunded anymore, because their jobs get easier.
The conservative government in New Zealand did both. Revenue neutral simplification in year 1, then tax cuts over 5 years and an increase in funding for the Revenue Department.
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 11:05:10 AM
Still, tax avoidance would be less of a problem with a simplified tax code, as would tax evasion. You'd have all those IRS types that would have to be put to work somhow.
Of course, but then the purpose of our tax system isn't to raise revenue, but to reward friends and punish enemies, and to impose your will upon the people by forcing them to engage in behavior you approve of.
Oh, and also to ensure that everybody is in violation of the law so they can put the hammer down on anyone at anytime. I doubt it is even humanly possible to not be breaking the tax law.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 06:23:40 PM
No, it's intentionally underfunded. Because GOPtards hate it. If you lowered the operating costs, they'd lower the funding further.
Everyone hates the IRS
Quote from: 11B4V on March 05, 2012, 10:04:24 PM
How many ADHD kids does it take to change a light bulb.
Wanna go bike riding.
I'm so bulk-emailing that to my sister's Mommy Group.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 05, 2012, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 11:05:10 AM
Still, tax avoidance would be less of a problem with a simplified tax code, as would tax evasion. You'd have all those IRS types that would have to be put to work somhow.
Of course, but then the purpose of our tax system isn't to raise revenue, but to reward friends and punish enemies, and to impose your will upon the people by forcing them to engage in behavior you approve of.
Oh, and also to ensure that everybody is in violation of the law so they can put the hammer down on anyone at anytime. I doubt it is even humanly possible to not be breaking the tax law.
No, our tax system is indeed meant to raise revenue. You're just paranoid.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2012, 12:05:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2012, 06:23:40 PM
No, it's intentionally underfunded. Because GOPtards hate it. If you lowered the operating costs, they'd lower the funding further.
Everyone hates the IRS
Only the selfish, stupid and shortsighted.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 07:24:29 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 05, 2012, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2012, 11:05:10 AM
Still, tax avoidance would be less of a problem with a simplified tax code, as would tax evasion. You'd have all those IRS types that would have to be put to work somhow.
Of course, but then the purpose of our tax system isn't to raise revenue, but to reward friends and punish enemies, and to impose your will upon the people by forcing them to engage in behavior you approve of.
Oh, and also to ensure that everybody is in violation of the law so they can put the hammer down on anyone at anytime. I doubt it is even humanly possible to not be breaking the tax law.
No, our tax system is indeed meant to raise revenue. You're just paranoid.
Primarily, but it's also been used as a tool for social engineering.
It is refreshing to see the mentally ill can join US army. :(
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2012, 04:20:28 AM
Hans and Raz are remarkably the same kind of guy when it coms to politics: choose a side, study the memo on what that means, and follow it like gospel in "debates". They just happened to choose different sides, probably because of the source of their income.
That's why they're partisans and not ideologues. :angry:
I came up with my own bullshit; I vote Democrat, but out of hate.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 06, 2012, 03:32:59 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2012, 04:20:28 AM
Hans and Raz are remarkably the same kind of guy when it coms to politics: choose a side, study the memo on what that means, and follow it like gospel in "debates". They just happened to choose different sides, probably because of the source of their income.
That's why they're partisans and not ideologues. :angry:
I came up with my own bullshit; I vote Democrat, but out of hate.
Actually I don't study memos are go to propaganda sites to "Read up" on what I should be thinking. I know Hans used to post shit from the National Review, but that's just not my thing. What kind of memos have you been studying Tamas? I give you a pass on your stupid libertarianism like I give Siege a pass on bigotry. It's a sad product of your upbringing and national history.
And if anything Hans should be a Democrat by your reasoning, he's a federal employee. His gets his cash (and room and board) from Uncle Sam. I do respect Hans though I disagree with him. At least he has balls. He has the courage to risk being wrong. It's tough to believe in something. You risk being disappointed, being proven wrong, having your heart broken. A lot of people don't have that courage. They are more afraid of being wrong then they are interested in being right. They are fence sitters, the undecided, and the cynics. In other words, moral cowards.
Quote from: katmai on March 06, 2012, 11:21:35 AM
It is refreshing to see the mentally ill can join US army. :(
They wouldn't when I tried. <_<
Did you try to get into psyops?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
And if anything Hans should be a Democrat by your reasoning, he's a federal employee. His gets his cash (and room and board) from Uncle Sam.
Nah, Republicans are even happier than Democrats to overfund his branch of the government.
And of course I was right about Obama's motive, from the NY Post:
QuoteUS offered Israel advanced weaponry in exchange for delaying Iran attack: report
NEWSCORE
Last Updated: 1:38 PM, March 8, 2012
Posted: 6:48 AM, March 8, 2012
Tweet More Print WASHINGTON -- The US offered to give Israel advanced weaponry -- including bunker-busting bombs and refueling planes -- in exchange for Israel's agreement not to attack Iranian nuclear sites, Israeli newspaper Maariv reported Thursday.
President Obama reportedly made the offer during Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington this week.
Under the proposed deal, Israel would not attack Iran until 2013, after US elections in November this year. The newspaper cited unnamed Western diplomatic and intelligence sources.
Netanyahu said Monday that sanctions against Iran had not worked, adding that "none of us can afford to wait much longer" in taking action against Iran's controversial nuclear program.
However, Netanyahu told FOX News Channel on Wednesday that he did not think war with Iran was inevitable. He added that the only way to deter Tehran was to advocate carrying out a serious military strike against the Islamic Republic.
"The paradox is that if they actually believe that they are going to face the military option, then you probably will not need the military option," Netanyahu said.
The US also believes there is still a "window of opportunity" for the dispute to be resolved diplomatically.
Obama told reporters during a White House news conference Tuesday that the US would apply pressure to Iran, "even as we provide a door for the Iranian regime to walk through" to prove its nuclear program is peaceful.
The President had met Netanyahu in the Oval Office the day before, where he reaffirmed his "unprecedented commitment" to Israel's security in the Middle East.
On Thursday, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei welcomed Obama's support for finding a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis.
"This talk is good talk and shows an exit from illusion," AFP reported Khamenei as saying, citing the leader's website. However, Khamenei criticised the continued imposition of international sanctions against Iran.
"The US president continued saying that he wants to make the Iranian people kneel through sanctions, this part of this speech shows the continuation of illusion in this issue," he said.
A statement issued Thursday on behalf of the so-called P5+1 countries -- the US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany -- urged Iran to enter into a "serious dialogue" and "without pre-conditions" on its nuclear program.
The statement was issued at a meeting of the UN atomic agency in Vienna. "We call on Iran to enter, without pre-conditions, into a sustained process of serious dialogue, which will produce concrete results,"
Your source is suspect Square.
lulz, The NY Post, quoting Maariv. Why don't we throw in The National Inquirer while we're at it? IRANIANS USING MARTIAN TECHNOLOGY? INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!
I question if Israel can actually accomplish this by it's self. This may take a multi-day air campaign. I don't know if they can do it. It's not like the Iraqi thing back in the 1980's.
Israel has nukes. Glass it and we will come.
Quote from: The Brain on March 09, 2012, 09:36:06 AM
Israel has nukes. Glass it and we will come.
you mean YOU will come