• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Ecotic

Member
Clevinger said:
Neocons had been wanting to invade Iraq since the 90's.
Click to expand...
Ha, yeah true, bad phrasing on my part. Perhaps I should have said 1 in a 1000 chance of finding ourselves with the only electable candidate in office who would have listened to neocons, actively surrounded himself with neocons, and put neocons into cabinet positions. It really did just feel like no one else but W. could have dug up these Ford Administration fossils.
 
K

Kosmo

Banned
empty vessel said:
I think that conditioning the public is Fox's purpose, but it's just one contributor in a sea of disseminators of Libertarian thought. This is basically where all of the PR money of the wealth goes. It's not limited to just Fox. All media--including "liberal" media like MSNBC--parrot Libertarian tropes. And that's exactly the result a successful PR campaign should have. The result is people like Kosmo. (Sorry for the cheap shot, man, but it's true.)
Click to expand...

Not a problem, I wouldn't stoop to your level.
 
E

Ecotic

Member
speculawyer said:
I can't believe you are even comparing the two. The Libya war started BEFORE we entered the picture. Only after a rebel uprising and rebels seized more than 1/2 the country did we step in. We engaged in Libya only after both the UN and the Arab League gave their approval. And our engagement was a bunch of missile strikes and now nothing but a background role while the UK and France do all the heavy lifting. The two situations are so completely different.

We were more militarily involved in Iraq BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR than we are militarily involved in Libya right now! (Remember the no-fly zone over Iraq?)

Should Congress be involved? Sure. I'd like that. But we are talking about the crazy congress that not even McCain & Graham really can deal with. So I can understand the administration avoiding them because they'd try to put in banning Planned Parenthood or something in Libya resolution.
Click to expand...
Whoa, you're seeing things I don't think I ever wrote. Firstly I said they were totally different and the only point I was trying to make was that I've now realized we can easily find ourselves in wars that we may not have consented to. And I've realized this after believing for years that our involvement in Middle Eastern wars was the result of an anomaly - perhaps just a personal decision - made by one President. But I now see it can happen easily with our country. Like I said, Obama's more dovish than most, I just now wonder how another President will act in a similar future situation if he is more hawkish.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Ecotic said:
Whoa, you're seeing things I don't think I ever wrote.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to pick on you specifically. I'm just annoyed about this hubbub about Libya as if Obama is some crazy warmonger.

We don't even have planes in the sky, let alone boots on the ground. So I just don't understand why it is an issue. I think Obama pulled off a great Tom Sawyer Fence painting scheme with Libya. :) (Not really . . . France was gung ho to go after Libya and the UK still has issues due to the Locherbie plane bombing. Let them take down Ghadaffi . . . they can do it if they keep their spines in tact.)
 
I

Invisible_Insane

Member
speculawyer said:
I didn't mean to pick on you specifically. I'm just annoyed about this hubbub about Libya as if Obama is some crazy warmonger.

We don't even have planes in the sky, let alone boots on the ground. So I just don't understand why it is an issue. I think Obama pulled off a great Tom Sawyer Fence painting scheme with Libya. :) (Not really . . . France was gung ho to go after Libya and the UK still has issues due to the Locherbie plane bombing. Let them take down Ghadaffi . . . they can do it if they keep their spines in tact.)
Click to expand...
The organization that we bear 75% of the cost of is running the show.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Ecotic said:
Whoa, you're seeing things I don't think I ever wrote. Firstly I said they were totally different and the only point I was trying to make was that I've now realized we can easily find ourselves in wars that we may not have consented to. And I've realized this after believing for years that our involvement in Middle Eastern wars was the result of an anomaly - perhaps just a personal decision - made by one President. But I now see it can happen easily with our country. Like I said, Obama's more dovish than most, I just now wonder how another President will act in a similar future situation if he is more hawkish.
Click to expand...
A previous misguided military engagement in the same region shouldn't prevent us from doing what's right. For example, our ill-fated adventure in Somalia prevented us from an intervention in Rwanda. Our misadventure in Iraq 2003 shouldn't prevent us from stopping a clearly foreseeable slaughter in Libya. By "us" I don't mean unilateral intervention, but a multi-lateral engagement with the backing of nearly ever major global regional political and economic body.
Invisible_Insane said:
The organization that we bear 75% of the cost of is running the show.
Click to expand...
If financial concern is your issue, would you be OK if the cost was proportional to the level of our involvement, meaning France pays the highest and US pays somewhat less?
 
J

Jackson50

Member
Invisible_Insane said:
The organization that we bear 75% of the cost of is running the show.
Click to expand...
Additionally, our military officers participate in the operational planning.
RustyNails said:
A previous misguided military engagement in the same region shouldn't prevent us from doing what's right. For example, our ill-fated adventure in Somalia prevented us from an intervention in Rwanda. Our misadventure in Iraq 2003 shouldn't prevent us from stopping a clearly foreseeable slaughter in Libya. By "us" I don't mean unilateral intervention, but a multi-lateral engagement with the backing of nearly ever major global regional political and economic body.
Click to expand...
If our misadventure in Iraq did not prohibit our current intervention, it would not prohibit us from preventing a clearly foreseeable slaughter.
 
D

Dr. Pangloss

Member
empty vessel said:
I assume that is supposed to be (Applause).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I always find it interesting our culture's obsession with watching others fail. But the second worst economic disaster in 100 years is something to laugh at. Especially with manufacturing in the tank before it began.
tBj0H.png
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Jackson50 said:
If our misadventure in Iraq did not prohibit our current intervention, it would not prohibit us from preventing a clearly foreseeable slaughter.
Click to expand...
It apparently would have, if "not another quagmire in the middle-east!" isolationists had their way over "protect the civilians from slaughter" interventionists.
 
C

Clevinger

Member
Dr. Pangloss said:
Yeah, I always find it interesting our culture's obsession with watching others fail. But the second worst economic disaster in 100 years is something to laugh at.
Click to expand...

Bite your tongue. Kosmo would never stoop to that level.
 
I

Invisible_Insane

Member
RustyNails said:
A previous misguided military engagement in the same region shouldn't prevent us from doing what's right. For example, our ill-fated adventure in Somalia prevented us from an intervention in Rwanda. Our misadventure in Iraq 2003 shouldn't prevent us from stopping a clearly foreseeable slaughter in Libya. By "us" I don't mean unilateral intervention, but a multi-lateral engagement with the backing of nearly ever major global regional political and economic body.

If financial concern is your issue, would you be OK if the cost was proportional to the level of our involvement, meaning France pays the highest and US pays somewhat less?
Click to expand...
Sure, but the financial issue was probably the least of my objections. It takes truly Scalia-like mental gymnastics to see much of the bombing undertaken by NATO as "protecting civilians." The endgame is non-existent. And I feel as if we "undercounted" the interested of the countries asking us most urgently to get involved. The rebels are a flaccid, undisciplined force incapable of doing what it takes to oust Qaddafi on their own, and we will have necessarily become partisans in a civil war (which is what Reuters is calling it officially, now) when we inevitably intervene to bring the conflict to a close.

And if nothing else, to rehash some wit from the previous thread:
You can't spell Jamahiriya without mujahideen.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
RustyNails said:
It apparently would have, if "not another quagmire in the middle-east!" isolationists had their way over "protect the civilians from slaughter" interventionists.
Click to expand...
Nope. Not even then. The evidence was dubious, and the rationale specious. Nevertheless, I'll perpetuate the pretense.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Invisible_Insane said:
The organization that we bear 75% of the cost of is running the show.
Click to expand...
Well what does that mean?

We are certainly not paying for 75% of the costs of the Libya action. We are probably paying WAAAAY more than 75% of the Afghanistan actions.
 
I

Invisible_Insane

Member
speculawyer said:
Well what does that mean?

We are certainly not paying for 75% of the costs of the Libya action. We are probably paying WAAAAY more than 75% of the Afghanistan actions.
Click to expand...
It suggests that the amount of rhetorical distance people are trying to put between the US and NATO is significantly less broad than you would otherwise think.
 
L

Loudninja

Member
APNewsBreak: A twist in Obama's health care law
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.

Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps.
Click to expand...
http://beta.news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-twist-obamas-health-care-law-185603209.html
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
Loudninja said:
APNewsBreak: A twist in Obama's health care law

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-twist-obamas-health-care-law-185603209.html
Click to expand...
Hell fucking yeah.

EDIT: The comments are fucking gold. I know this is Yahoo, but I can't even get mad anymore with these clowns.

Don't worry. I'm absolutely certain that Obama has other surprises for us hidden in his agenda and in this bill. He won't be happy until he's totally destroyed the United States
Click to expand...


The UK is broke from universal heath care and their largest industry is health care.
Click to expand...

OOOOPS yea right!! they want us all on health care plan so will will all be dependant on the government. no thanks
Click to expand...
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Senate panel backs Panetta as U.S. defense chief




The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee enthusiastically backed Leon Panetta as the next Pentagon chief on Tuesday, agreeing in a unanimous vote to send his nomination to the full Senate for consideration.

Panetta, the outgoing head of the CIA, is expected to win a Senate floor vote to replace Robert Gates as U.S. Secretary of Defense but the exact timing of that vote is still uncertain.

Panetta, nominated by President Barack Obama, told Congress last week he would ensure fiscal discipline in the U.S. military, saying the days of "unlimited" defense budgets were over.

As CIA chief, he has been widely praised for last month's successful covert operation to kill Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda.

If the full Senate confirms him, Panetta will face big pressures to push defense budgets lower and speed a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. That pullout is expected to begin next month.

During his confirmation hearing, Panetta broadly signaled his alignment with Gates, the outgoing defense secretary, saying they tended to "walk hand in hand" on many issues. Gates has warned against hasty drawdowns in Afghanistan.

Panetta, 72, is a long-standing Democrat who became Obama's director of the CIA in February 2009.

He continued drone strikes against suspected militants in tribal areas along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan that had started in President George W. Bush's administration.

As spy chief, Panetta traveled to more than 30 countries.

He originally made his mark in Washington with success in cutting the federal budget deficit during the 1990s.

Former President Bill Clinton made him head of the Office of Management and Budget. Later, Panetta took over as Clinton's White House chief of staff.
​

And


Senate confirms Leon Panetta as Defense secretary
By Lisa Mascaro
Washington Bureau
June 21, 2011, 2:02 p.m.



Leon Panetta was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on Tuesday as secretary of Defense, taking the helm at the Pentagon as President Obama's national security policy reaches a pivotal juncture amid growing discontent in Congress over expansive overseas military operations at a time of stark budget deficits.

Panetta, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, will replace Robert M. Gates, who is retiring after serving in two administrations, as the White House overhauls its national security team.

Panetta's confirmation came as Obama is about to address the nation this week on a planned drawdown of troops in the Afghanistan and as Congress is increasingly frustrated over the administration�s stance on the U.S. military�s role in Libya.

Senators debated the administration�s Afghanistan policy while considering Panetta�s confirmation Tuesday, underscoring the challenge facing the new Defense chief. Despite the disagreement over Afghanistan, however, Republicans and Democrats spoke in favor of Panetta�s nomination.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the choice of Panetta was a "wise and solid one." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called Obama�s nominee "a home-run choice."

​

################

Surprised it was this easy. Is this the "you kill Bin Laden" treatment going on?
 
C

Chichikov

Member
mckmas8808 said:
Surprised it was this easy. Is this the "you kill Bin Laden" treatment going on?
Click to expand...
In a way.
I think the GOP feel they can score more points by having a fight about the debt ceiling than about national security.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
I believe in government investing in infrastructure, science, and education, but other than that, I'm starting to believe the President really has no effect on the economy. Except for tax cuts, which has an adverse effect on our economy. =\
 
K

Kosmo

Banned
Current ratings are worse that I thought:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/keith-olbermann-boost-ratings-current-97367

The channel’s current average primetime viewership draws about 23,000.


Industry analysts on Tuesday said the addition of Keith Olbermann will help put Current TV on the map in terms of programming, ratings and increased carriage opportunities.
Wunderlich Securities analyst Matthew Harrigan predicted that Olbermann's return to the TV screen would mean "a huge impact on ratings" at the network. He estimated that the current average primetime viewership in the 20,000-30,000 range could multiply ten-fold or even more. "Keith Olbermann obviously was the man who made MSNBC, and he has got a very loyal audience," Harrigan said. "This is huge for Current." "It is the first thing Current TV has done since launch to put itself on the map," Larry Gerbrandt, principal at Media Valuation Partners agreed. "It's been a non-factor in terms of programming…for the first time, this puts Current on the map as a real player." He cautioned though that Olbermann's ratings should at least start off lower. "This is not unlike Conan O'Brien moving to TBS," he said. "We'll have to see what the impact is. But it is unlikely that he will perform better than he did on MSNBC." RBC Capital Markets analyst David Bank echoed that the Olbermann hire “definitely raises the profile of Current.” But he cautioned that any ratings benefit may not necessarily endure. "My bet is it will [raise viewership] for the first week or two," he said. "Let’s see what happens after that." Which cable news network will feel ratings pain as a result of Olbermann's new job? "There are plenty of viewers to go around, but MSNBC was going to lose viewers because of losing Olbermann anyway, and this has already happened," Gerbrandt suggested. "I don't think he takes away viewers from anybody else. It's not a zero-sum game." Analysts also see Olbermann's addition as a boost to Current's efforts to expand its reach. It currently is in 60 million U.S. homes via digital tiers. "Current currently doesn't have the same distribution as MSNBC, so this will make it easier for them to get wider distribution," Gerbrandt said about the Olbermann hire. With digital cable being "so ubiquitous" these days, current distributors would likely leave Current TV on digital tiers instead of moving it to a basic tier, Harrigan suggested. "And [distributors] might even want to leave it there to entice people to upgrade, because he is almost like a Howard Stern type," he said. He really has his fanatic followers." Current ad sales are likely negligible for Current, but the network would get a chance to start developing that revenue stream with higher ratings, Harrigan added. Meanwhile, Olbermann's getting a stake in Current is "a bit unusual in terms of a news personality," Gerbrandt said in echoing others. "We already have the precedent of Oprah Winfrey having a network named after her” and co-owning OWN, he said. “But they haven't named the network after him."
Click to expand...

Keith Olbermann is has a Howard Stern type following? LOL People upgrading their cable package for Current TV? Double-LOL

23,000 people. That's a whole 460 people per state tuning in during primetime.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
state-of-the-art said:
Obama should bring back the Public Works Administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Works_Administration
Click to expand...
Considering we surpassed the housing crash of the great depression, ideas like this are starting to seem reasonable. But the current unemployment numbers are not nearly as bad as the great depression unemployment.


I'm still skeptical on a lot of the stimulus ideas though . . . with our globalized economy, so much of the stimulus projects just end-up using tax-dollars to stimulate foreign economies since we buy raw materials, tools, equipment, etc. from foreign vendors on so many of these projects. If they are going to spend money then they need to figure out how to spend it in ways where all the money stays here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
234
42K
Bloobs replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
2K
Holammer replied
Remember what happened to the Infinity Ward Founders?
8
2K
Chuck Berry replied
Did anyone else think that the Nintendo Wii was going to be the best selling console ever back then?
39
4K
Eddie-Griffin replied
|OT| NEOGAF 2020 Pick-Up Post! Show Us Your Gaming Goods + MORE [REAL PICS ONLY]
|OT| 2
85
11K
Godzilla Emu replied
Top Bottom