• 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 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
This has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with arms dealers trying to maximize their profits.
That is the unwritten basic tenent of modern conservatism. It is the core goal of all their policy prescriptions from smashing unions, slashing regulations, and cutting taxes.

Oh sure . . . there are a few other things (abortion, gays, etc.) but those are just window dressing to get groups of single-issue voters.
 
I believe carter was for decriminalization too. I'm pretty sure he was for more progressive drug policy at least. With Regean we saw the family movement and with that, our current war on drugs.
 
How did Kennedy sell out the civil rights movements, and how should he have handled Cuban Missile Crisis differently? I don't know enough about Vietnam and him to comment on that, but I recognize how he helped the space program get off the ground, which I greatly admire.

And the best thing you can say about Carter's presidency was that it was inoffensive. He didn't really accomplish anything.

what? SALT, Camp David Accords, etc? His foreign policy still has influence, it's just that the Iran situation clouds everything due to republican FUD
 

Chichikov

Member
Egypt/Israel?
That is more Nixon than Carter, the groundwork have really been laid during the separation of force agreement in 1974 (not to mention that without Nixon's direct pressure, Israel would've probably ended up massacring half of the Egyptian army that was left surrounded in Sinai which most likely would've made the peace impossible for a generation).
They guy was a racist paranoid thug who nearly destroyed our democracy, but man, his foreign policy record is rivaled by few.
 

Chichikov

Member
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1487470

A really good article about how the gun lobby have been blocking any sort of scientific research on gun violence.
I have not yet researched the claims the article made, but I intend to.

Someone should probably tldr bold it for one of the many gun threads we have in the OT, but I'm on a tablet and fucking doing it on a tablet.
I know the kids love them, but damn they truly are the laptop's retarded little brother.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
sc0la in the popgaf thread said:
Wish the previous poligaf threads would get locked with a mod post at the end directing us to the new one...
*Grumble grumble*

My inability to read is why I can't have nice things.
 

dabig2

Member
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1487470

A really good article about how the gun lobby have been blocking any sort of scientific research on gun violence.
I have not yet researched the claims the article made, but I intend to.

Someone should probably tldr bold it for one of the many gun threads we have in the OT, but I'm on a tablet and fucking doing it on a tablet.
I know the kids love them, but damn they truly are the laptop's retarded little brother.

It's all probably very much true. Additionally, here's an interesting Slate article/interview with a researcher on the matter:

How Congress Blocked Research on Gun Violence

<snip>
But as Congress considers new laws, the scientific research we need to craft the best policies is in short supply. This is by design.

In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year.

But last summer, Dickey recanted. No longer in office, he wrote an editorial stating that “scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners.”

To understand more about what we know and don’t know about the science of firearm violence, Slate contacted Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis Medical Center. For over 30 years, he has studied firearm violence and published more than 100 studies in the field.
<snip>

I love the bit later in the article about the non too veiled threat to his life by the president of one of the largest handgun factories in the world.
 
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1487470

A really good article about how the gun lobby have been blocking any sort of scientific research on gun violence.
I have not yet researched the claims the article made, but I intend to.

Someone should probably tldr bold it for one of the many gun threads we have in the OT, but I'm on a tablet and fucking doing it on a tablet.
I know the kids love them, but damn they truly are the laptop's retarded little brother.

word. after a week of fumbling with my ipad, i ended up giving it to my gf.
 
Egypt/Israel?

I still think that was more Sadat wanting peace then carter by himself.

The Cuban Missile Crisis and the begining of the Space Program are why JFK beats carter. Carter didn't have the legacy that JFK did even if he did "more" in office.
 

Gruco

Banned
I got "The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Passage of Power" as a Christmas gift. I'm about halfway through the introduction, but beforehand I was skimming the pictures included in the novel, and one had a man with a protest sign that read, "LBJ sold out to Yankee socialists." Oh, how little things change.

Yeah, if you haven't read Master of the Senate yet I strongly recommend that too.

Seriously, everyone should read as much Caro as possible.

For all the valid criticisms of JFK for failing to do much of anything with his domestic agenda, I'm glad it was him in the driver's seat on the Cuban Missile Crisis instead of LBJ.
 

Chichikov

Member
Yeah, if you haven't read Master of the Senate yet I strongly recommend that too.

Seriously, everyone should read as much Caro as possible.
Co-signed.
I recently finished The Passage of Power, and by god, we better have a dead reanimation technology ready just in case Caro bites it before he finishes the last volume.
For all the valid criticisms of JFK for failing to do much of anything with his domestic agenda, I'm glad it was him in the driver's seat on the Cuban Missile Crisis instead of LBJ.
The Cuban Missile Crisis is the US's doing.
What business does it have where the Russians put their missiles?
Especially as the US had short range missiles in Turkey and Italy that were closer to Moscow than Cuba is to Washington.
Not to mention that with the benefit of hindsight we know that the USSR wasn't going to launch a surprised nuclear attack, that was stupid paranoia (the Russian but the way were equally paranoid, but man, American politics gave them plenty of reasons, they never fully understand that presidential campaigns are like professional wrestling).
Good thing Khrushchev decided to act like an adult at the end, oh, and JFK also folded the US short missile programs like a bitch, but he didn't tell the American public, so he can be portrayed as the man who stare the Ruskies and won.
He does get credit for standing up for some of the crazier elements in the military (mainly in the air force) who wanted to go full Armageddon, but that's about it.

p.s.
I feel like I wrote it before on this forum, probably more coherently.
 

Gruco

Banned
Good thing Khrushchev decided to act like an adult at the end, oh, and JFK also folded the US short missile programs like a bitch, but he didn't tell the American public, so he can be portrayed as the man who stare the Ruskies and won.
He does get credit for standing up for some of the crazier elements in the military (mainly in the air force) who wanted to go full Armageddon, but that's about it.

p.s.
I feel like I wrote it before on this forum, probably more coherently.
To his credit.

Both countries let the cooler heads prevail over the hotter ones. JFK deserves props for his forbearance and for not listening to his batshit VP in particular.
 
The Cuban Missile Crisis is the US's doing.
What business does it have where the Russians put their missiles?
Especially as the US had short range missiles in Turkey and Italy that were closer to Moscow than Cuba is to Washington.
Not to mention that with the benefit of hindsight we know that the USSR wasn't going to launch a surprised nuclear attack, that was stupid paranoia (the Russian but the way were equally paranoid, but man, American politics gave them plenty of reasons, they never fully understand that presidential campaigns are like professional wrestling).
Good thing Khrushchev decided to act like an adult at the end, oh, and JFK also folded the US short missile programs like a bitch, but he didn't tell the American public, so he can be portrayed as the man who stare the Ruskies and won.
He does get credit for standing up for some of the crazier elements in the military (mainly in the air force) who wanted to go full Armageddon, but that's about it.

p.s.
I feel like I wrote it before on this forum, probably more coherently.
I think saying the US policy was any more an unknown than russian is silly its not like either side knew what was going on. Both sides thought the other was crazy and wanted to attack first. To your point about campaigns we were freaked out that the Russians practiced civilian defense thinking that signaled they knew they were gonna get bombed when we later found out it was just to make their citizens feel safer it wasn't actually going to make them so.

That whole era was just crazy.


Also I remember just resently they kept the nukes there much longer and were close to giving them to Castro (or at least he was begging them to let him keep them)
 

Chichikov

Member
I think saying the US policy was any more an unknown than russian is silly its not like either side knew what was going on. Both sides thought the other was crazy and wanted to attack first. To your point about campaigns we were freaked out that the Russians practiced civilian defense thinking that signaled they knew they were gonna get bombed when we later found out it was just to make their citizens feel safer it wasn't actually going to make them so.

That whole era was just crazy.


Also I remember just resently they kept the nukes there much longer and were close to giving them to Castro (or at least he was begging them to let him keep them)
US politicians of the era went out of their way to bash the USSR, democrats and Republicans alike.
Fuck, you had a Barry Goldwater running his mouth about he he's going to defeat them and the LBJ campaign painting him as someone who would nuke the Russians if elected, how do you think they felt?

The US knew shit and all about what was going on in the kremlin, the CIA was fucking bitchslapped throughout the cold war by the KBG; fuck, the fact that Kremlinology was thing should tell you everything you need to know.
"-logy".
LOL

Edit: yeah, I really liked Legacy of Ashes.
:p
 

AniHawk

Member
was wondering what happened to the poligaf thread. and then i ran into the popgaf thread by mistake. damn popgaf thread. gets me every time.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
The thread title bugs me. The subtitle is "Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" but it should be "Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee".
 

Zigzz14

Member
Kennedy sold out the civil rights movement? Jesus fucking Christ, I don't know how to react to this since I'm never sure who is trolling in this thread an who is being sincere.
 
Just wanted to chime in on Ed Schultz, I can't stand the guy myself, he's basically a lib with the same idiotic mindset as most repubs, making declarative statements about this guy being wrong about this and that without backing them up and of course the laughably retarded polls. MSNBC's one truly blowhard host.
 
Just wanted to chime in on Ed Schultz, I can't stand the guy myself, he's basically a lib with the same idiotic mindset as most repubs, making declarative statements about this guy being wrong about this and that without backing them up and of course the laughably retarded polls. MSNBC's one truly blowhard host.

Al Sharpton can be quite the blowhard.
 

Touchdown

Banned
Have we got a recording of Boner's voice cracking?


I see what you did there.
iUCBqAsYkTrCN.gif
 

leroidys

Member
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1487470

A really good article about how the gun lobby have been blocking any sort of scientific research on gun violence.
I have not yet researched the claims the article made, but I intend to.

Someone should probably tldr bold it for one of the many gun threads we have in the OT, but I'm on a tablet and fucking doing it on a tablet.
I know the kids love them, but damn they truly are the laptop's retarded little brother.

You always bring the truth, Chichikov.
 

Akainu

Member
Jesus @ Representative Tim Huelskamp on Morning Joe.

That was the most infuriating 10 minutes of television ever, and is the most perfect illustration of why it is the Republicans destroying America piece by piece.

On the fiscal cliff, every single member of the panel including Joe slowly walks Huelskamp through the process - revenues vs. cuts, or what balance there should be in the order. Slowly but surely they walk him through hypothetical scenarios to try to see where the line is, what he could compromise on.

Until finally he admitted the answer is nothing. Absolutely nothing. He will never vote for anything that has any tax increases for even a single person. Ever. In fact, he will not compromise or any issue whatsoever the Democrats want in the bill, and if they get something he won't vote for it.

When prompted that it is impossible to govern in a country like ours when you're completely unwilling to compromise on any aspect of the debate, he entered into some circular void where he kept dodging questions.

"Well, how do you get anything done when one party won't compromise on a single point?"
"Well back in 2010, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. So it's possible!"

The implication from then on being that as long as the Democrats surrender to whatever the Republicans want, the country will run just peachy!

God and it just got more infuriating from there. When they got to the gun debate, his argument was just misdirection after misdirection.

"Will you consider any changes to gun laws?"
"No, that's politicizing the issue. But violent videogames and mental health need to be looked into."
"Wait, you dare say I'm politicizing the issue if I talk about sensible changes in gun control laws but you're not politicizing anything when you talk about how we need to address violent videogames and mental health?"
"I have FOUR CHILDREN, I care about their safety more than anyone! And yet I do not think the laws need to be changed. The laws are not the problem!"
"In what way are they not the problem when these high capacity magazines allow people the ability to literally mow down dozens of people at a time? When do you need these weapons or abilities? To hunt or to protect yourself? Come on!"
"I have FOUR CHILDREN, and I know the laws are not the problem. Didn't Connecticut have laws against this stuff anyway? See, fail! DO you have any children Joe?"
"I have four children too."

Then he goes on, without any irony, to imply that Joe was like using his children as a shield in the debate, meanwhile up until that point Huelskamp was basically the only one mentioning their children.
This is amazing.
 

FyreWulff

Member
Saw this at Gawker

Republicans don't even know how to be Republican anymore. Their solution to to shootings is to make the government even bigger by installing government agents in every school building with a gun.

But see, that's okay. Giving people universal healthcare including mental health programs? Go fuck yourself, peons.
 
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/12/my_final_offer_is_this_nothing.php?m=1

I don’t know whether this is accurate. If anything it doesn’t square with my read on what happened on President Obama’s negotiating style. But it makes for entertaining reading.

From the Journal …

Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.
At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

I have a hard time believing it but its funny to imagine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom