The Librarian
Banned
Oh hell yes! Medicare is about to make the costs of the 100 most common inpatient procedures for hospitals public.
-
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 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
ClassyPenguin
Banned
That would assume it's salvageable.
The Librarian
Banned
Dear lord...from the article I linked to:
That is so fucked up.
Officerrob
Banned
Was just watching "The Daily Rundown" and they were covering a new NBC/Marist poll. Get this, VA Governor Bob McDonald currently holds a 61% favorability rating in the state, making him one of the most popular governor's in the country. However, in a hypothetical 2016 match-up against Hillary, he trails by "double digits" in Virginia.
That's assuming a linear scaling where there isn't one. Take those refugee families, give them 1000% more income, you aren't going to see 1000% improvement in their kids' grades. They did well because their parents pushed them, and that wouldn't be any different if they were rich. And they may have bucked the poverty/performance trend, but that's a common result with immigrants since the very act of immigration demonstrates the kind of drive that's also expressed in parental involvement in education.
There are poor parents who manage to get their kids educated well, and middle class parents who let their latchkey kids do whatever they want and flunk out, but the overall link is very clear. Poverty makes it harder to get parents to educate their kids, and it's the biggest problem we have in education.
cooljeanius
Member
That's GWU for you, always making stuff more expensive than it needs to be. Thanks, Trachtenberg.
Figured she'd lose.
I realize that there is no such thing, and that there is no reason to infer any such thing, but that's a date rapist face if ever I saw one.
For anyone considering giving that Heritage Foundation immigration report the tiniest shred of credence:
Shockingly, the author is kind of a huge racist.
Shockingly, the author is kind of a huge racist.
I think he just means Polacks. That's not racist.
My favorite line is 'underclass behavior'
The mom of a victim blamed Hillary. Wonder where she got that idea. Probably saw Hillary standing near the bodies, drenched in blood, just laughing it up.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
LBJ was a mixed bag at best. Good intentions, perhaps. Obama is better.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Mixed bag? He killed millions of people based on information he knew was false. Obviously he did some great things for the country that still resonate today but ultimately a president's first job is as Commander In Chief. And he failed miserably at that.
So we have stopped with the kneejerk "no way he'd win" responses and making date rape jokes, heh. I think Rubio has a really good shot.
TacticalFox88
Banned
LBJ's Domestic triumphs are only rivaled by FDR.
His foreign policy was god awful, almost as bad, if not worse than Bush's.
WTF man?
Both have terrible record on national security (both inherited stupid wars they didn't believe in, and both continued to pursue them just so they don't look weak) and LBJ is ten times better on domestic policy.
Even on speeches, Obama is a better orator and a better speechwriter, but on substance, LBJ destroys him.
Not even close.
LBJ didn't started Vietnam, he never wanted any of that shit.
That does not excuse his escalations, but you can't put him on the same level of Bush who randomly went to a useless war for no good reason whatsoever.
Obama and Afghanistan is a much better comparison in my mind.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Hence my "at best" modifier. I've come to appreciate his domestic victories more in recent years.
Worse. Seriously, much worse.
I know a lot of you are young, but Viet Nam was a really, really bad thing. Not only was it a magnitude larger than our Middle East wars, the economic impact it had lasted to the end of the 70s.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
WTF man?
Both have terrible record on national security (both inherited stupid wars they didn't believe in, and both continued to pursue them just so they don't look weak) and LBJ is ten times better on domestic policy.
Even on speeches, Obama is a better orator and a better speechwriter, but on substance, LBJ destroys him.
You are equating Obama's too-slow drawdown to LBJ's huge expansion. And as noted, Viet Nam was a whole different scale. LBJ may not have technically started the Viet Nam war, but he's directly and immediately responsible for it as we understand it.
Troop levels
1959 760
1960 900
1961 3205
1962 11300
1963 16300
1964 23300
1965 184300
1966 385300
1967 485600
1968 536100
He escallated from 16,300 troops to over half a million. And as a result the draft became a very real thing having a tangible negative effect on society.
That's in no way comprable to Obama's record in the Middle East.
And: I don't judge presidents on speeches. I happen to think Obama's oratory skills are hugely overrated regardless. He's fair, he just looks amazing compared to Bush or any of his contenders.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Who knows how Obama will be judged. His second term seems like it'll be nothing more than responding to international crisis while defending domestic policies he passed in his first term, while the economy slowly drowns. Maybe immigration gets done, but I'm starting to get healthcare flashbacks; who knows what congressmen will do when they get back from summer recess town halls. In terms of actual change, I wouldn't compare him to LBJ. Obama seems to prefer to move the goal posts of the status quo and declare victory; watered down Wall Street "reform," drone war instead of conventional war, etc; I'm sure he would have made a big spectacle of signing the weak Toomey-Manchin if it had come to his desk too.
Fenderputty
Banned
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=479664
We still got the best.
Sucks about Sanford. It looked like Colbert could pull of a miracle for a second there.
Yes I am.
Both escalated the war at the military's request, Obama had the good fortune of inheriting a less messed up war and more reasonable military brass, but that's about it.
Also, you can argue that LBJ had a reason to believe the military that they can win that thing, but Obama should've known better, if nothing else, LBJ's failure in Vietnam should've taught him the danger of that approach.
Ah, Benghazi. As harsh as it sounds, the average American citizen just doesn't care.
Fuck Fuckabee.
Now for your daily scheduled: BENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZI.
Return tomorrow for another dose.
There's really a chance of this happening?
I enjoy being on political blackout so I have no idea.
And in all seriousness, how's Rubio doing these days in regards to his rep?
Anyone actually following the hearing? It's pretty telling when CNN is covering that kidnapping escape and not the hearing. AC's interviewing the guy who called the cops to save them, I love this dude he's awesome. Dude's got money problems and wants the reward to go to the victims instead. Sounds like he's going to be moving soon, he's pretty freaked out over the whole thing.
Issa is doing another Benghazi hearing, he says it'll blow this whole thing wide open. Everyone else says bullshit.
Issa is doing another Benghazi hearing, he says it'll blow this whole thing wide open. Everyone else says bullshit.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Impeachment is pointless because you need 67 votes in the Senate to outst the President.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah, even if the House managed to drum up the support, there's 55 Senate Democrats. I don't think they'd even get a majority.
Huckabee also predicted that Wayne Dumond wouldn't murder and rape again either.
Ice cold
empty vessel
Member
Those are roughly equal escalations between 1960 and 1963 and between 1964 and 1968.
Wow, I wasn't fully aware of the details of that case. Just read up on it.
Figured she'd lose.
Holy shit, he looks like Zachary from saved by the bell!
I'm not one prone to hyperbole but today's Benghazi hearing is a disaster and embarrassment for the Obama Administration. No wonder Obama didn't nominate Susan Rice for Sec of State - she'd very likely have to resign, or be fired. This is all setting up well for Joe Biden, however.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Guffaw!
Rocket Scientist
Member
Not up to date on the whole conversation going on here, but, this is sarcasm right EV lol?
:lol sure sure
Frank the Great
Banned
o rly
empty vessel
Member
No. Somebody can check my math (which I admittedly did quickly and cursorily), but I figure one is about a 1700% escalation and the other is about a 2200% escalation. Plus, it may be that 1964--or at least some of it anyway--ought more properly not be attributed fully to Johnson since these kinds of decisions are often made and put into motion well in advance.
Edit: and for whatever it's worth, I don't really have a dog in this fight about who gets the blame. I don't typically put responsibility for foreign policy events on individuals, even presidents. I mean, they may share it, but typically these are class-based decisions that executives simply carry out.
benghazi benghazi benghazi.
Do republicans not realize that diplomatic facilities are constantly under attack, and that it is almost always the responsibility of the hosting nation (not the nation who the embassy belongs to) to protect them?
Every person who works for a US embassy understand the risks of going into another nation as a diplomatic official. It means constantly dealing with tensions at the international level and entrusting your safety to another nation's security forces. It means having the courage to communicate with another country and entrust your safety to them, even if relations between your country and theirs are hostile. It means going deep into potential enemy territory while unarmed in the name of open communication and diplomacy, rather than submitting to force and military strength for security.
Libya did not have the governmental stability in the wake of their civil war to properly protect the embassy. It's an unfortunate tragedy, but one that Libya has taken full responsibility for (and apologized to the US for), as they should, and it is a risk that every single person knew they were dealing with.
I really wish someone would have the balls to actually say this on the floor of congress, to compare embassy workers to soldiers, instead of treat them like some kind of innocent civilians we failed to protect.
No, they died in the line of duty, serving a cause far more noble than any war. And based on the reactions of Libyans to the attacks, they served both the US and Libya well. And instead of trying to turn their deaths into a scandal, we should be honoring them.
Do republicans not realize that diplomatic facilities are constantly under attack, and that it is almost always the responsibility of the hosting nation (not the nation who the embassy belongs to) to protect them?
Every person who works for a US embassy understand the risks of going into another nation as a diplomatic official. It means constantly dealing with tensions at the international level and entrusting your safety to another nation's security forces. It means having the courage to communicate with another country and entrust your safety to them, even if relations between your country and theirs are hostile. It means going deep into potential enemy territory while unarmed in the name of open communication and diplomacy, rather than submitting to force and military strength for security.
Libya did not have the governmental stability in the wake of their civil war to properly protect the embassy. It's an unfortunate tragedy, but one that Libya has taken full responsibility for (and apologized to the US for), as they should, and it is a risk that every single person knew they were dealing with.
I really wish someone would have the balls to actually say this on the floor of congress, to compare embassy workers to soldiers, instead of treat them like some kind of innocent civilians we failed to protect.
No, they died in the line of duty, serving a cause far more noble than any war. And based on the reactions of Libyans to the attacks, they served both the US and Libya well. And instead of trying to turn their deaths into a scandal, we should be honoring them.
Black Mamba
Member
That's like arguing going from 1 troop to 2 troops is like escalating from 1 million troops to 2 million troops. Or the same force to go from 1mph to 2mph as 100mpg to 200mph
Percentages aren't everything. Context matters.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Jesus fuck. What an idiot. That's a disastrous idea on every level.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
I will never (well actually I do but i digress) the stressing over the "Benghazi Attack!" by the right. It's like they are ignoring EVERYTHING that happened in Iraq and all the attacks that happened there and all the "innocent" civilians, diplomats, and soldiers that died. No big stink raised at 3,000 American soldiers dying, but god-for-fucking-bid an ambassador and a couple soldiers (?) die in an attack in a war torn country and EVERYONE freaks the ever loving fuck out.
The hypocrisy makes my blood boil.
Frank the Great
Banned
democrats should really be pushing spending on veterans programs, and jobs programs specifically for veterans. seems like an easy political winner that republicans would be forced to oppose due to their obstinance. and taking care of veterans and putting people to work would also have real social and economic benefits.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Meh. There's no question Hillary fucked up on Benghazi but this shouldn't be a political issue. There was a fuck up and people died. Did the WH lie about the video being the main culprit, despite the CIA saying otherwise? Sure. This hasn't been treated like huge news outside of the right because...it's not huge news. No, Obama didn't sit in the WH watching four Americans die, then demand the military not help them. I realize politics is ugly, but I always think a line is being crossed when someone suggests a the president of the United States let US soldiers (or diplomats) die for no reason. This isn't the Gulf of Tonkin, this is a government fuck up that also has the CIA's fingerprints all over it.
I think republicans know of the CIA involvement, the fact that the embassy was also a front for an operation, that the White House can't really openly talk about it...so they've decided to capitalize on that by spreading some pretty dangerous FUD. I could understand using this as a hail mary during the election - granted I didn't think it would work, but I at least knew what they were trying to achieve (win the election). But what motive is there now, other than to smear the president in the eyes of the military? Obama isn't going to get impeached over this, his approval won't sink due to it, etc. The only intent I see here is to demonize the president and accuse him of treason. And as I said, when you start sending that message to our troops that can be a very dangerous thing.
(On Hillary: does anyone honestly think this will matter in three years when she's running against another GOP candidate, be it Rubio or Paul or Christie, with absolutely no foreign policy experience? She's going to trounce whoever challenges her on these topics)
Pretty important elections taking place in Pakistan in 2-3 days. I wonder how this will effect the US-Pakistan relationship.
As a native Pakistani watching from afar, I am rooting for Imran Khan to win. Seems like the first legitimate candidate interested in improving education, the economy, and other problems plaguing the country rather than just lining his own pockets with funds.
As a native Pakistani watching from afar, I am rooting for Imran Khan to win. Seems like the first legitimate candidate interested in improving education, the economy, and other problems plaguing the country rather than just lining his own pockets with funds.
3 years? it doesn't matter today
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
First Pakistani leader to be ousted by scissor lift rather than the ISI.
empty vessel
Member
It didn't go from 1 to 2. 16000 troops is not a negligible number of troops. The point is that substantial escalation was well underway before Johnson.
Shadow Hog
Member
B-b-b-but it's Obama's Watergate! Huckabee said so!
- Status