Support NeoGAF

[TacticalFox88]

We ran out of cards 2 years ago. The situation is a mess and there is not much anyone can do. The best we can hope for is some magical technical innovation to become a hot new item that will drive spending and investment. Nuclear fusion, some biotech breakthrough, a hot new tech item, etc.

But mostly we are stuck in a slog with ever-increasing energy prices, an aging population, and nothing new to get people excited to buy & invest. The economy must painfully change to adapt to expensive oil and continued cheap-foreign labor competition.


We are largely just screwed but hope for the magic silver bullet is eternal.

There always war...but that would end badly. But would a WWII type even help in todays economy? (Obviously assuming nuclear is taken off the table)

 

[Cyan]

Where is the dishonesty? Are you just assuming he supports gay marriage and thus is being dishonest?

That's my assumption.

Even if that is true, he isn't being all that dishonest right now. He doesn't say he is AGAINST gay marriage. (Like nearly the entire GOP presidential line-up where they nearly all said they supported a Federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.) Obama just doesn't say he is for it. And he uses vague statements like "my views are evolving".

So it's not really lying, sort of lying by omission... which still seems dishonest to me.

 

[Kosmo]

Where is the dishonesty? Are you just assuming he supports gay marriage and thus is being dishonest?


Even if that is true, he isn't being all that dishonest right now. He doesn't say he is AGAINST gay marriage. (Like nearly the entire GOP presidential line-up where they nearly all said they supported a Federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.) Obama just doesn't say he is for it. And he uses vague statements like "my views are evolving".

Yes. As do I and I don't see the big deal with it. What he's essentially saying is "If it helps me get elected, I'll keep it vague so I can get some of those bigots who oppose gay marriage to vote for me."

 

[Gaborn]

You need to explain that more. Do you want this person to just say "I confirm extra terrestrial Life exists" even if they have no scientific proof of it?

If so then you should be voting for Kucinich! ;-)

I want a president to say that they have scientific evidence of the existence of alien life. I'm not talking about Kucinich's "I believe aliens exist" stuff

Ether - I don't necessarily think the US is actively hiding evidence of alien life but if they WERE and a president revealed it they'd get my vote.

Put it like this. I am generally not interested in voting for Obama but in a circumstance where he revealed the existence of alien life either because for some asinine reason it WAS classified or because he simply got lucky I would, because I find the concept amazing, and it would change everything. That doesn't mean I believe it is likely but then what are the odds I'd vote for Obama without such a position?

Cyan - As I said he's either lying or incompetent.

 

[kaching]

Not just any rally. He said it in NY which is on the verge of legalizing same sex marriage and he STILL couldn't lend his support for unconditional equality for all citizens. What a weasel. He'll look absolutely awful if he loses and maintains this position till after his defeat.

Marriage is an antiquated tradition burdened with so much religious baggage, it makes more sense to leave it to die a slow death and focus more on civil unions as state-acknowledged equal rights alternative, which seems to be the route Obama would prefer to go. I realize in the short term it means being denied a right/privilege that others have but in the long term it's better way to build truly unconditional equality for all citizens if you really believe in that.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Just how many barrels are in our SPR?

 

[gcubed]

Just how many barrels are in our SPR?

currently 726.5 million

http://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html

 

[Kosmo]

Just how many barrels are in our SPR?

800 million, I believe.

 

[Gaborn]

Marriage is an antiquated tradition burdened with so much religious baggage, it makes more sense to leave it to die a slow death and focus more on civil unions as state-acknowledged equal rights alternative, which seems to be the route Obama would prefer to go. I realize in the short term it means being denied a right/privilege that others have but in the long term it's better way to build truly unconditional equality for all citizens if you really believe in that.

That's not going to happen any time soon and I resent the implication that gays should be burdened with advancing your social experiment in what society should do. Society gives certain rights and recognition through a legal institution called marriage, denying access to the instititution on the basis of sex is a violation of equal protection and is unconstitutional, as well as disgusting.

 

[Clevinger]

So, the House voted against giving Obama authorization for Lybia. But then they also voted down a bill that would defund our involvement. Wha?

 

[WickedAngel]

So, the House voted against giving Obama authorization for Lybia. But then they also voted down a bill that would defund our involvement. Wha?

He'll get his crabs one day, just watch.

 

[Kosmo]

So, the House voted against giving Obama authorization for Lybia. But then they also voted down a bill that would defund our involvement. Wha?

I would like a list of those with inconsistent votes - either be against the war there and the funding, or be for both - any other combination is chicken shit.

 

[Gaborn]

So, the House voted against giving Obama authorization for Lybia. But then they also voted down a bill that would defund our involvement. Wha?

Most of the Republicans aren't opposed to Libya on principle (like they SHOULD be) they're opposed to giving Obama a victory.

 

[kaching]

Everything in our society is a damn social experiment, Gaborn. We're all still in the very early stages of learning how to live together without killing each other.

Sometimes there are legal institutions that are better overturned than further institutionalized. There is no way you can make a practice like marriage fundamentally and unconditionally equal for ALL citizens without massive social experimentation.

 

[Gaborn]

Everything in our society is a damn social experiment, Gaborn. We're all still in the very early stages of learning how to live together without killing each other.

Sometimes there are legal institutions that are better overturned than further institutionalized. There is no way you can make a practice like marriage fundamentally and unconditionally equal for ALL citizens without massive social experimentation.

Sure, but there is an inherent problem with using a section of society as the focus of your social experiment. If you want to get rid of legal recognition for marriage and give everyone civil unions - then give everyone civil unions. Denying gays access to the institution because you don't think anyone should have marriage is disingenuous and puts absolutely no pressure on straight people to give up the institution, it just puts gays in a separate box.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

This doesn't really mean anything for exxon's bottom line though. Speculators and investors will feel that pain.

Mostly speculators, and really, fuck them.

 

[Clevinger]

I would like a list of those with inconsistent votes - either be against the war there and the funding, or be for both - any other combination is chicken shit.

Here's a list of both votes:

Authorization

Defunding

 

[ChoklitReign]

If my father wasn't straight and married, I would be certain that Gaborn is in actuality my own father. He also votes straight LP.

 

[Kosmo]

Kind of an interesting article suggesting that Gabrielle Giffords should resign her seat:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/24/sracic.giffords.resign/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I don't really agree with the premise, but it raises an interesting question - in the case of something like Giffords (or say someone has a stroke) where they are likely mentally incapacitated, did they even have the ability to resign of sound mind?

What is even a reasonable solution here? I can see Democrats no wanting Brewer to put a Republican in there, which is understandable. Should the seat just sit vacant until the next election - which seems not to harmful in the House, but what if she was in the Senate and had a 6 year term? Should there be some law in place where, say you are unable to perform your duties for 1 year, that seat is then considered vacant and subject either to a governor's appointment or some kid of special election?

 

[Clevinger]

Kind of an interesting article suggesting that Gabrielle Giffords should resign her seat:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/24/sracic.giffords.resign/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I don't really agree with the premise, but it raises an interesting question - in the case of something like Giffords (or say someone has a stroke) where they are likely mentally incapacitated, did they even have the ability to resign of sound mind?

What is even a reasonable solution here? I can see Democrats no wanting Brewer to put a Republican in there, which is understandable. Should the seat just sit vacant until the next election - which seems not to harmful in the House, but what if she was in the Senate and had a 6 year term? Should there be some law in place where, say you are unable to perform your duties for 1 year, that seat is then considered vacant and subject either to a governor's appointment or some kid of special election?

Should depend on her district. If they want her out, she should be out. Otherwise, no. I imagine she, and most in the situation, would resign if she was a senator, and surely if she was a governor.

 

[speculawyer]

Most of the Republicans aren't opposed to Libya on principle (like they SHOULD be) they're opposed to giving Obama a victory.

This.

It is pretty sad and petty. If a Republican was in office, they'd be 100% who ever that Republican bombed.

They were all for "liberating" a country that absolutely did not want US troops invading, was no threat to us, cost us 4000+ servicemen and trillions of dollars. But it when people rise up and revolt against a dictator and ask for some help . . . well . . . a Democrat is in the whitehouse. We are probably spending less on this Libyan "war" than we spent on military operations in Iraq BEFORE the Iraq war!

The hypocrisy is MASSIVE. And the split in the support versus cut-off funding exposes much of it.


Basically . . . Libya exposes all the "We wanted to liberate the Iraqi people." line as a complete and utter fucking lie. Here is your chance to liberate people from a dictator, they literally asked for the help, and it will cost much less . . . and you say "No"? Well . . . then you really don't give a fuck about liberating people then do you? Thus, Iraq was more about Israel, oil, WMDs (if you will admit you were a dumbfuck that believed in WMDs that did not exist even when Hans Blix told you that they didn't exist!), etc.

 

[Kosmo]

Should depend on her district. If they want her out, she should be out. Otherwise, no. I imagine she, and most in the situation, would resign if she was a senator, and surely if she was a governor.

But that's the thing - we don't even know if she has the mental capacity in her current state to know what happened, that she is even an elected representative, etc.

 

[Gaborn]

This.

It is pretty sad and petty. If a Republican was in office, they'd be 100% who ever that Republican bombed.

They were all for "liberating" a country that absolutely did not want US troops invading, was no threat to us, cost us 4000+ servicemen and trillions of dollars. But it when people rise up and revolt against a dictator and ask for some help . . . well . . . a Democrat is in the whitehouse. We are probably spending less on this Libyan "war" than we spent on military operations in Iraq BEFORE the Iraq war!

The hypocrisy is MASSIVE. And the split in the support versus cut-off funding exposes much of it.

Indeed, although there does at least seem to be a TINY strain of anti-war sentiment in the Republicans now. It's not going to last I think but it is there.

And I don't think the Dems are much better incidentally. If Bush invaded a country without congressional authorization they'd go nuts. Heck, Senators Obama and Biden would BOTH have voted to impeach Bush (at least they said that if he did it without authorization in regards to North Korea). Both parties are very similar but polarized against the other.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Kind of an interesting article suggesting that Gabrielle Giffords should resign her seat:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/24/sracic.giffords.resign/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I don't really agree with the premise, but it raises an interesting question - in the case of something like Giffords (or say someone has a stroke) where they are likely mentally incapacitated, did they even have the ability to resign of sound mind?

What is even a reasonable solution here? I can see Democrats no wanting Brewer to put a Republican in there, which is understandable. Should the seat just sit vacant until the next election - which seems not to harmful in the House, but what if she was in the Senate and had a 6 year term? Should there be some law in place where, say you are unable to perform your duties for 1 year, that seat is then considered vacant and subject either to a governor's appointment or some kid of special election?

I don't really object to the idea that someone mentally incapacitated (by age or otherwise) should either have some sort of interim replacement appointed or elected. I think there is some potential conflict in the author asserting that "democracy is about participation, not results," but then claiming that Giffords' inability to secure results for her district should compel her to resign.

One way around this would be an instant runoff election to be held in cases of mental incapacitation, where the voters in a district would be asked, "Should your representative be replaced, and if so by whom?"

 

[speculawyer]

Indeed, although there does at least seem to be a TINY strain of anti-war sentiment in the Republicans now. It's not going to last I think but it is there.

And I don't think the Dems are much better incidentally. If Bush invaded a country without congressional authorization they'd go nuts. Heck, Senators Obama and Biden would BOTH have voted to impeach Bush (at least they said that if he did it without authorization in regards to North Korea). Both parties are very similar but polarized against the other.

Ron Paul has been consistent as ever on this.

I agree the Dems would be more against it if a GOPer did it. Kucinich is very against it as is even with Obama. But impeach? Fuck no. They are WAAAAY too much of pussies to do that. The GOP isn't even trying that on Obama right now.

 

[Kosmo]

Indeed, although there does at least seem to be a TINY strain of anti-war sentiment in the Republicans now. It's not going to last I think but it is there.

And I don't think the Dems are much better incidentally. If Bush invaded a country without congressional authorization they'd go nuts. Heck, Senators Obama and Biden would BOTH have voted to impeach Bush (at least they said that if he did it without authorization in regards to North Korea). Both parties are very similar but polarized against the other.

I think there might be enough there to eventually get our troops, for all intents and purposes, out of Afghanistan and Iraq...which will last for a decade or so and then the military-industrial complex will ramp up again.

 

[mckmas8808]

Indeed, although there does at least seem to be a TINY strain of anti-war sentiment in the Republicans now. It's not going to last I think but it is there.

And I don't think the Dems are much better incidentally. If Bush invaded a country without congressional authorization they'd go nuts. Heck, Senators Obama and Biden would BOTH have voted to impeach Bush (at least they said that if he did it without authorization in regards to North Korea). Both parties are very similar but polarized against the other.

But the USA didn't invade Libya, so your last point is invalid.

 

[empty vessel]

But the USA didn't invade Libya, so your last point is invalid.

Yes it did.

 

[Gaborn]

But the USA didn't invade Libya, so your last point is invalid.

Did Japan "invade" the US during Pearl Harbor? I say yes, at least for the purposes of the War Powers Act.

 

[aronnov reborn]

Indeed, although there does at least seem to be a TINY strain of anti-war sentiment in the Republicans now. It's not going to last I think but it is there.

And I don't think the Dems are much better incidentally. If Bush invaded a country without congressional authorization they'd go nuts. Heck, Senators Obama and Biden would BOTH have voted to impeach Bush (at least they said that if he did it without authorization in regards to North Korea). Both parties are very similar but polarized against the other.

as a conservative i have a ton now. I don't want to be in Afghanistan or Iraq anymore or Libya. Also quit funding Pakistan. I don't blame Obama for any of it either because i know he walked into a tough situation with all these locations. I just want to quit spending the money with all the fiscal issues we're having now.

 

[Kosmo]

as a conservative i have a ton now. I don't want to be in Afghanistan or Iraq anymore or Libya. Also quit funding Pakistan. I don't blame Obama for any of it either because i know he walked into a tough situation with all these locations. I just want to quit spending the money with all the fiscal issues we're having now.

Pretty much my sentiments as well.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yes it did.

Not the USA in the since that we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[mckmas8808]

So guys here's the White House's plan (number of troops wise) for Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 3 years.

 

[Gaborn]

So guys here's the White House's plan (number of troops wise) for Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 3 years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def.../infographic_roop_levels_afghanistan_iraq.jpg

Not fast enough but heading in the right direction.

 

[RustyNails]

"Defeat Al Qaida" ? That is incredibly amusing. Did Ronald Reagan had something like that where he was going to "Defeat Communists ?"

 

[Invisible_Insane]

So guys here's the White House's plan (number of troops wise) for Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 3 years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def.../infographic_roop_levels_afghanistan_iraq.jpg

So we're leaving 20K people in Afghanistan?

"Defeat Al Qaida" ? That is incredibly amusing. Did Ronald Reagan had something like that where he was going to "Defeat Communists ?"

It's like saying Starbucks has been defeated because they closed a couple of stores a few years back. Ridiculous.

 

[speculawyer]

So guys here's the White House's plan (number of troops wise) for Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 3 years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def.../infographic_roop_levels_afghanistan_iraq.jpg

Meh . . . that is a bit propagandistic. Why are they conflating Iraq & Afghanistan? They should be addressed separately.

Did Japan "invade" the US during Pearl Harbor? I say yes, at least for the purposes of the War Powers Act.

I still say "no" . . . they attacked but they did not invade.

But as far as the war powers act goes, yes, such an attack would fit. However, as far as I know, the USA is not involved in hostile operations in Libya. No combat air sorties NOW that I know of. (We did participate at the start.)

 

[Gaborn]

I still say "no" . . . they attacked but they did not invade.

But as far as the war powers act goes, yes, such an attack would fit. However, as far as I know, the USA is not involved in hostile operations in Libya. No combat air sorties NOW that I know of. (We did participate at the start.)

I think the drone attacks which we are conducting in Libya would fit, in the sense that if some other country was controlling drones and using them to target anyone in the US we would consider it an act of war. It's CERTAINLY a hostile act. We are not using troops, but that does not mean we are not engaged in hostilities, which is what the war powers act says.

 

[RustyNails]

I think the drone attacks which we are conducting in Libya would fit, in the sense that if some other country was controlling drones and using them to target anyone in the US we would consider it an act of war. It's CERTAINLY a hostile act. We are not using troops, but that does not mean we are not engaged in hostilities, which is what the war powers act says.

But then that would mean we are also engaged in "hostilities" inside Pakistan as well. I don't see Republicans kicking up a big fuss about War Powers Act with regards to our routine drone strikes in Pakistan.

 

[Gaborn]

But then that would mean we are also engaged in "hostilities" inside Pakistan as well. I don't see Republicans kicking up a big fuss about War Powers Act with regards to our routine drone strikes in Pakistan.

Yes, it does mean that.

I would say though in that case at least Congress did authorize going after terrorists around the world. (specifically section 2). I don't think Gaddafi was involved in 9/11.

 

[speculawyer]

But then that would mean we are also engaged in "hostilities" inside Pakistan as well. I don't see Republicans kicking up a big fuss about War Powers Act with regards to our routine drone strikes in Pakistan.

And Yemen.


And Somalia.

 

[besada]

I agree Obama's being a coward with gay marriage, but I do find it hilarious how high and mighty you're being about this considering all the open bigots in the Republican party you vote for. Gaborn gets a complete pass because he votes Libertarian. I doubt you do.

Except Gaborn votes for Ron Paul, who's adamantly against gay marriage. Granted, he takes the ridiculous Libertarian position that the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage (without ever bothering to explain what we're to do with the existing shit-ton of marriages that do have federal recognition) but he's been absolutely clear that he doesn't support gay marriage.

But let's see what Paul has to say on the issue:

“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. ”

Doesn't exactly fit with Gaborn's desire to see federal recognition of marriage, but it does have some sexy 10th Amendment appeal. Apparently, that's a good enough reason to vote for someone on the "wrong side of history."

 

[Gaborn]

And Yemen.


And Somalia.

Congress authorized going after the group responsible for 9/11 (Al Qaeda). That would seem to apply to Al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia as well, but wouldn't apply to Iraq (separate authorization for the war, which again I opposed) or to Libya which... got no authorization.

Seriously, read the authorization:

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABIL

Besada - True, although I support Paul for other reasons than exclusively gay marriage just as I wouldn't vote for Obama if he DID suddenly endorse gay marriage.

 

[eznark]

Big, Big, Big Trouble




http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/06/big_big_big_trouble.php?ref=fpblg

Not unless they can find someone/something to corroborate Bice's suppositions. On it's face, he broke no campaign laws.

 

[mckmas8808]

Meh . . . that is a bit propagandistic. Why are they conflating Iraq & Afghanistan? They should be addressed separately.

Because they were specifically addressing the "wars" that Obama stated he would bring to a close.

They are talking about the broader draw down for these wars that have lasted about a year. Keep in mind he ran on ending the war in Iraq too.

 

[Jackson50]

I still say "no" . . . they attacked but they did not invade.

But as far as the war powers act goes, yes, such an attack would fit. However, as far as I know, the USA is not involved in hostile operations in Libya. No combat air sorties NOW that I know of. (We did participate at the start.)

We may not be flying sorties. Yet we are contributing to the funding of the NATO operation. American commissioned officers are involved in the operational planning of OUP. And our navy is participating in the naval blockade which enforces the arms embargo. I think that would qualify as hostile operations.

 

[Gaborn]

We may not be flying sorties. Yet we are contributing to the funding of the NATO operation. American commissioned officers are involved in the operational planning of OUP. And our navy is participating in the naval blockade which enforces the arms embargo. I think that would qualify as hostile operations.

Fuck funding, we're controlling drone attacks.

 

[Jackson50]

Fuck funding, we're controlling drone attacks.

True. Yet you already noted that. I was listing additional actions that would qualify as hostile operations.

 

[eznark]

Just catching up on the news today. Actually having work to do makes me feel so ill-informed!

I like that Obama is claiming he won't weigh in on the NY gay marriage thing because he respects states rights, yet he was more than happy to weigh in on the Wisconsin budget battle for the unions.

I guess the gays just don't contribute campaign funds like the unions.

 

[speculawyer]

We may not be flying sorties. Yet we are contributing to the funding of the NATO operation. American commissioned officers are involved in the operational planning of OUP. And our navy is participating in the naval blockade which enforces the arms embargo. I think that would qualify as hostile operations.

I don't think funding counts. I think the 'hostilities' means "are you putting our troops in harms way". We are endlessly funding hostilities somewhere. Israel, central america, south america etc.

Navy blockade is a good argument . . . are we doing that?

Drone attacks . . . are we really doing drone attacks in Libya? A lot of this I just don't know . . . I wish there were more coverage. I suspect we are doing drone surveillance.