fuck mcchrystal. what he did was pathetic. he knew what he was doing and that shit pisses me off.
Tu Stultus Es
you dont talk to the fucking media
Tu Stultus Es
The UN can break international law as well, y'know.Cybargs wrote:
i mean via "international law." but yeah most democracies need the shit to go through their legislature but usually prez's bypass that shit and "intervene" afaik.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
no it's not. War is legal if Congress gives approval, or the president deems stipulations enumerated in the War Power Act are realized.
at least in the US
Point was simply that Generals are always chosen because they agree with what the President wants. They are the ultimate lapdogs.eleven bravo wrote:
fuck mcchrystal. what he did was pathetic. he knew what he was doing and that shit pisses me off.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
After what mcchrystal said he was kinda forced to fire him. Though he (mcchrystal) did have a point, if all he did with obama was talk for 15 mins for a photo-op with the press and having no chance to discuss the goals for Afghanistan and how to reach them even though he was just promoted to ISAF/USFOR-A commander, I would be pissed off too.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-06-17 12:14:52)
inane little opines
Re: The Bush-Obama Euro hate-love thing running in three threads right now.
I find it really funny, in a sad way, how the people most against Bush are now big Obama fans and the people most against Obama were the biggest Bush supporters. It's funny because the differences between both of them are fairly small.
Sure, Obama's stimulus attempt was six times as large but he was just continuing the precedent of government intervention into the economy that Bush started.
Sure Erza is attempting to criticize the right but he has the details right. Come on, Obama's not some sort of open minded liberal modernizer I think you want him to be.
Now if you want to talk about foreign policy: Obama pretty much expanded on Bush's policies. Under Obama we increased the amount of drone strikes we were doing in Pakistan dramatically as well as doing them independently of Pakistan. Meaning, we don't have to tell Pakistan if we are going to blow someone up in their own country. Furthermore we started drone striking in Yemen. We might even be stepping up drone strikes there. Also we intervened in Libya, which is as morally dubious as Iraq in 03 since Gaddafi was just putting down a rebellion and was working with us since 03...
I'm not trying to apologize or criticize either one of them, I'm ambivalent towards both of them. I'm just bemused by the lack of consistency many people exhibit.
in b4 tl;dr
I find it really funny, in a sad way, how the people most against Bush are now big Obama fans and the people most against Obama were the biggest Bush supporters. It's funny because the differences between both of them are fairly small.
Interestingly enough, it was an experienced president who started the whole stimulus thing in regards to the U.S. economy.Yeah obama was a shit president...he wasn't ready to be president either.
examples...
cash for clunkers
stimulus package
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-13/poli … M:POLITICSPresident Bush on Wednesday signed the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, calling it a "booster shot" for the American economy.
"The bill I'm signing today is large enough to have an impact, amounting to more than $152 billion this year, or about 1 percent of the GDP (gross domestic product)," the president said in the brief ceremony in the East Room of the White House.
The government hopes the measure, which will send most Americans tax rebate checks by May, will either prevent a recession or make one relatively brief.
Sure, Obama's stimulus attempt was six times as large but he was just continuing the precedent of government intervention into the economy that Bush started.
Wasn't ready for him? Right ideas? Obama's approval starting dropping when the democrats started to push health care reform. The health care bill that was passed was actually a health care plan that came from the right originally.The US wasn't ready for Obama just yet ... he's got the right ideas but little chance of transforming it into the announced change he spoke of, the republicans made sure of that ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ … ml?hpid=z9Take health-care reform. The individual mandate was developed by a group of conservative economists in the early ’90s. Mark Pauly, an economist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, was one of them. “We were concerned about the specter of single-payer insurance,” he told me recently. The conservative Heritage Foundation soon had an individual-mandate plan of its own, and when President Bill Clinton endorsed an employer mandate in his health-care proposal, both major Republican alternatives centered on an individual mandate. By 1995, more than 20 Senate Republicans — including Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar and a few others still in office — had signed one individual mandate bill or another.
Sure Erza is attempting to criticize the right but he has the details right. Come on, Obama's not some sort of open minded liberal modernizer I think you want him to be.
Now if you want to talk about foreign policy: Obama pretty much expanded on Bush's policies. Under Obama we increased the amount of drone strikes we were doing in Pakistan dramatically as well as doing them independently of Pakistan. Meaning, we don't have to tell Pakistan if we are going to blow someone up in their own country. Furthermore we started drone striking in Yemen. We might even be stepping up drone strikes there. Also we intervened in Libya, which is as morally dubious as Iraq in 03 since Gaddafi was just putting down a rebellion and was working with us since 03...
I'm not trying to apologize or criticize either one of them, I'm ambivalent towards both of them. I'm just bemused by the lack of consistency many people exhibit.
in b4 tl;dr
yeah, B. Hussein "The Great Divider" Soetoro and George "homo erectus" Bush really aren't that different. Bush was neoconservative big government, Obama is liberal big government.
I do prefer Obama over Bush, but that doesn't mean I love him.
I do prefer Obama over Bush, but that doesn't mean I love him.
eleven bravo wrote:
thats not my point. the bush adminsitration fired any general that wasnt a yes man for their policies. ignored advice so they could implement their own agenda. fighting a war on a budget but giving boat loads of money to contractors. sending 90k troops to iraq instead of 500k. forgetting about afghanistan.
Fuck Israel
\_/
11 Bravo wrote:
\_/
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Doing OK though, kthx, internet seems to work fine too."not only is your continent full of culture-phobic savages, thieves, rapists and murderers... you deem it somehow inappropriate to have uncensored video-games and 20th century internet technology. i would literally rather be living in syria"
Fuck Israel
He was impeached. Just not convicted.Dilbert_X wrote:
My point is in relation to all the hysteria leading up to that, I'm not saying perjury is a good thing.
Although in every court case one of the two parties usually lies on oath, its not as if its novel.
Still, he got away with it, a President lied on oath and wasn't impeached, crikey.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
i lie about my sex life all the time. i claim to not get any.FEOS wrote:
He was impeached. Just not convicted.Dilbert_X wrote:
My point is in relation to all the hysteria leading up to that, I'm not saying perjury is a good thing.
Although in every court case one of the two parties usually lies on oath, its not as if its novel.
Still, he got away with it, a President lied on oath and wasn't impeached, crikey.
that would be kinda ironic innit. kinda like peacekeepers raping kids and trading aid for food and nothing gets done about it.Jenspm wrote:
The UN can break international law as well, y'know.Cybargs wrote:
i mean via "international law." but yeah most democracies need the shit to go through their legislature but usually prez's bypass that shit and "intervene" afaik.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
no it's not. War is legal if Congress gives approval, or the president deems stipulations enumerated in the War Power Act are realized.
at least in the US
Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years' due to rare drop in sunspot activity
It's not just the Daily Fail running this..
A sufficient debunking here if you feel the need to read more.
It's not just the Daily Fail running this..
A sufficient debunking here if you feel the need to read more.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Fuck Ron Paul.Kmar wrote:
I don't think the GOP field of candidates could be anymore depressing. Paul might be the exception, but the chances of him winning are pretty damn low.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
why?War Man wrote:
Fuck Ron Paul.Kmar wrote:
I don't think the GOP field of candidates could be anymore depressing. Paul might be the exception, but the chances of him winning are pretty damn low.
anyone who wants to cut aid to israel and other fucking countries has my vote tbh
Foreign Aid is less than 1% of the U.S. budget. If you want to cut stuff from the budget there are better things than cutting our foreign influence.
im not talking about cutting the budget here.Macbeth wrote:
Foreign Aid is less than 1% of the U.S. budget. If you want to cut stuff from the budget there are better things than cutting our foreign influence.
and people seem to dismiss things way too easily. "well its only one percent." start adding up all the 1 percents and you might be surprised how much you can save.
Sure it looks good on paper when you cut 50 billion or something but it doesn't add up to much overall.start adding up all the 1 percents and you might be surprised how much you can save.
There are plenty of things that can be cut, I'll concede that point. But no, even if you cut every single one percent and lower program the deficit will still be killed by entitlements and the military. Sure we should be more open to cutting stuff but let's deal in reality here. Foreign aid is very helpful to our interest.
99% of the time I hear someone suggest cutting foreign aid, it's tied to a line about "spending the money here first" usually followed by something about defunding planned parenthood or NPR. You know, charlatan talk. My mistake for assuming.im not talking about cutting the budget here.
He's the only GOP candidate worth a shit.War Man wrote:
Fuck Ron Paul.Kmar wrote:
I don't think the GOP field of candidates could be anymore depressing. Paul might be the exception, but the chances of him winning are pretty damn low.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
They are all depressing in their own way. Ron Paul lost me when he defended the defense of marriage act in the debate.
When it comes to economic issues I'm with them on 9 out of 10 things but every single one manages to lose me when they start to go on about gay marriage or abortion. Gah
When it comes to economic issues I'm with them on 9 out of 10 things but every single one manages to lose me when they start to go on about gay marriage or abortion. Gah
Last edited by Macbeth (2011-06-18 01:59:33)
Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense. Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
He's been against it at times and for it at times but his voting record shows he that he isn't someone to be relied upon when it comes down to a vote."Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."
Last edited by Macbeth (2011-06-18 02:07:35)
.. and that is the average voters problem with Paul. They don't look in to his reasoning, and basically make assumptions on the why.
Ron Paul wrote:
Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state.
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states' power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.
Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:
“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.
Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state's ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.
In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president's signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.
Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state's right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.
Xbone Stormsurgezz