• 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 Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deku

Banned
AbortedWalrusFetus said:
Again, you're assuming that I wasn't counting services that have widespread, indirect benefits as things that don't need to be paid for. I'm all for paying for services such as these as long as it's done evenly for everyone.
You're quotable line was quoted largely due to its widespread use for the anti-tax people. I wasn't arguing with you directly but what your little comment about only 'paying for services we use' really implies.

It's double talk, and a poor ass one at that.
 
Mandark said:
If by "used universally" you mean fire services are available to anyone who needs them, okay.

But by that standard a broad range of welfare state services are "used universally" and I suspect you wouldn't support those.

Not without proper justification, of course.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
You know, just once, I'd like to hear a libertarian sing the praises of a flat tax, finishing with "...and that's why we should uncap FICA!"
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Maybe i'm not seeing the clear picture, but how would the government pay for programs such as social security and medicare if they're spending our tax dollars during economic busts to get the economy moving again?

You calibrate the baseline to the expected level of social services you're intending to provide. During a downturn, you lower taxes to a rate that pays for ongoing services, and you do extra stimulus as needed via deficit spending. During a boom, you raise taxes to a higher point that can be borne by the successful markets and use the surplus gathered to pay off your recent deficit spending or sock it away for the next recession.

AbortedWalrusFetus said:
You successfully talked around the real issue I raised until the very end of the relevant portion

Please try to read what I said again, and take it in small steps.

Do you accept that taxation is a legitimate action for a government? (If no, we have basically reached the end of this conversation.)

If so, note two things. First, there is a huge variety of means by which a government can implement taxation, each of which has its own distinct implications for the populace and each of which is distributed differently in terms of its impact on the taxed. (A consumption tax has different implications from a sales tax, which both differ from an income tax or a service tax or a property tax.) There is no true presumption about which one (or mix) of these is the "right" kind of taxation to perform.

Secondly, there are numerous different definitions of "fair," none of which is pre-privileged as universally accurate and understood. Economics does not specify a "fair" tax rate; inasmuch as most religions speak to the issue at all, they tend to support taxing the rich more strongly than the poor; a case (albeit one I would find morally loathsome) could even be made for taxing people based on their "productivity" or "contribution," whereby the poor were taxed more than the rich.

The idea that a flat income tax is inherently "fair" is an illusion. There is nothing presumptive or more "obvious" about this than any other individual tax philosophy that one can posit.

If you want to make an argument for one specific tax policy from actual first principles, please, go ahead, but simply appealing to grade-school cake-division "fairness" without a strong set of underlying arguments doesn't really make for a case that can be grappled with intellectually and truly debated and so is likely to get nothing more than "go away"-type dismissals.
 

JayDubya

Banned
We can't seriously still be having people conflating anarchism and strict constitutionalism / small government conservatism, can we?

I mean, hell, even a minarchist night watchman state has a military, police, and a judicial system.

Mandark said:
You know, just once, I'd like to hear a libertarian sing the praises of a flat tax, finishing with "...and that's why we should uncap FICA!"

Talk to speculawyer, then, if he counts. He's the Bill Maher of these parts. No one that opposes the existence of socialist security is going to support more going into it.
 
JayDubya said:
We can't seriously still be having people conflating anarchism and strict constitutionalism / small government conservatism, can we?

Wait, is that happening again? Ctrl-F Somalia didn't turn up any hits for me this time. :lol
 

Hootie

Member
obama-fbi-hat.jpg
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
You realize that uncapping FICA could easily be done in a revenue-neutral way simply by lowering the rate, right? Surely the sons and daughters of liberty would be down with that?
 
Mandark said:
You know, just once, I'd like to hear a libertarian sing the praises of a flat tax, finishing with "...and that's why we should uncap FICA!"

I'm not a libertarian, but Lord knows I'd support it. Then you lower the rate so it has less impact on the poorer people.
 
Newt Gingrich just twittered: "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

This was preceded by: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman' new racism is no better than old racism"

While Gingrich doesn't have a vote in the Senate, he may have passed the litmus test.


"Imagine a judicial nominee said "my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman" new racism is no better than old racism."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/27/white-house-admonishes-gi_n_208227.html

What's next, the GOP will question whether she attended a Puerto Rico pride parade and wonder why white people can have a white pride parade.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
**BREAKING/EXCLUSIVE: Sestak Tells Backers He's Running For PA Senate Seat**

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/exclusive-sestak-intends-to-run-for-senate.php?ref=fpa

sestak-527-full.jpg


EXCLUSIVE: Sestak Intends To Run For Senate
By Brian Beutler - May 27, 2009, 4:02PM
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) is privately telling supporters that he intends to run for Senate, TPMDC has confirmed.

"He intends to get in the race," says Meg Infantino, the Congressman's sister, who works at Sestak for Congress. "In the not too distant future, he will sit down with his wife and daughter to make the final decision."

The move would constitute a primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who intends to run for re-election in 2010, after having switched parties earlier this year.

Earlier today, a Sestak volunteer and contributor received a handwritten note from Sestak himself, announcing his intent to run and asking for a contribution. The source provided TPMDC a scan of the letter:​

sestak-note-527.jpg


The note says, "I am writing you as especially dear supporters to let you know I intend to run for the U.S. Senate...my candidacy's credibility will have much to do with my fundraising success by the 30 June FEC filing deadline at the end of this quarter. Would you help me bring the change for the future we Pennsylvanians need[?]"

Infantino confirms that the note is genuine and that "Joe Sestak has written a number of similar notes."

We'll provide you with more details as we receive them.​


###​
 

Jonm1010

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/27/white-house-admonishes-gi_n_208227.html

What's next, the GOP will question whether she attended a Puerto Rico pride parade and wonder why white people can have a white pride parade.
I keep telling myself that the way the GOP handles this nomination is going to be really telling in terms of whether the GOP gets just how fucked they are if they dont start courting minorities and try to mend the image of minority hostillity that most of those minorties tend to perceive about the GOP.

The early indicators are they still have their heads in the sand, clinging to what worked in the past (playing to the southern or rural white males and the rich) and are ignoring the shift in demographics and temperment of the country.
 
Jonm1010 said:
I keep telling myself that the way the GOP handles this nomination is going to be really telling in terms of whether the GOP gets just how fucked they are if they dont start courting minorities and try to mend the image of minority hostillity that most of those minorties tend to perceive about the GOP.

The early indicators are they still have their heads in the sand, clinging to what worked in the past (playing to the southern or rural white males and the rich) and are ignoring the shift in demographics and temperment of the country.

I am curious. If you were a Republican Senator, how would you handle this nomination? Should they just give her a pass through? What would be your method?
 

Jonm1010

Banned
LovingSteam said:
I am curious. If you were a Republican Senator, how would you handle this nomination? Should they just give her a pass through? What would be your method?

If you have philosophical disagreements, argue her on the merits of them. I think even if they know their arguments are hollow, if they werent so clueless, they would think of ways to attack her without coming off as racist or hotsile to minorities. Which clearly they are teetering on now, if not already done so.
 

APF

Member
Jonm1010 said:
If you have philosophical disagreements, argue her on the merits of them. I think even if they know their arguments are hollow, if they werent so clueless, they would think of ways to attack her without coming off as racist or hotsile to minorities. Which clearly they are teetering on now, if not already done so.
Which Senator are you talking about?
 
Jonm1010 said:
If you have philosophical disagreements, argue her on the merits of them. I think even if they know their arguments are hollow, if they werent so clueless, they would think of ways to attack her without coming off as racist or hotsile to minorities.

I do agree that mentioning her race is ridiculous if for no other reason than it reaffirms what many see them as: racist. I also get the feeling from watching some interviews with different folks on the street that they believe repubs should just give her a pass BECAUSE she is a minority and would bring "change" to the court. This too is preposterous.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
LovingSteam said:
I am curious. If you were a Republican Senator, how would you handle this nomination? Should they just give her a pass through? What would be your method?

I'm assuming that to be a Republican Senator, I must also identify with conservative philosophy?

The best way to handle this is to use her to make money and rile up the base using 3rd-party attack units (Rush, Coulter, Fox) but to basically let her sail through while still providing sufficient objection should she ever prove to be the wild-eyed liberal that the far right might fear.

They don't have anything on her except some out of context comments and one potentially divisive vote. Obstruction would appear to be doing so BECAUSE of her race and gender, despite what anybody says otherwise. Unless they can find some crazy dirt on her, of course.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
LovingSteam said:
I am curious. If you were a Republican Senator, how would you handle this nomination? Should they just give her a pass through? What would be your method?

Just for lolz, if I was any politician, I wouldn't answer hypothetical questions like this. ;)
 

Jonm1010

Banned
LovingSteam said:
I do agree that mentioning her race is ridiculous if for no other reason than it reaffirms what many see them as: racist. I also get the feeling from watching some interviews with different folks on the street that they believe repubs should just give her a pass BECAUSE she is a minority and would bring "change" to the court. This too is preposterous.
i would like to see those sources. I certainly have seen pundits and "experts" claim that they should give her a pass for political reasons (basically for what i just said about furthering the stereotype of being an anti-minority party and that given they arent going to win the battle its better to just be firm on their differences but not abrasive) but not because of the simple fact she is Latino.
 
PantherLotus said:
I'm assuming that to be a Republican Senator, I must also identify with conservative philosophy?

The best way to handle this is to use her to make money and rile up the base using 3rd-party attack units (Rush, Coulter, Fox) but to basically let her sail through while still providing sufficient objection should she ever prove to be the wild-eyed liberal that the far right might fear.

They don't have anything on her except some out of context comments and one potentially divisive vote. Obstruction would appear to be doing so BECAUSE of her race and gender, despite what anybody says otherwise. Unless they can find some crazy dirt on her, of course.

Ok. This is what I feel they will do in the end, let her sail through. The reason I believe this is she is taking over for Souter who is liberal. Now, if Kennedy happened to leave then we would see fireworks, just as we saw with Alito taking over for O'Connor. One, she was a female and he being male and two she was seen as more moderate/liberal and he being more conservative especially on the abortion debate. I personally don't have a problem with her being let in because her pick won't change the court one way or another.
 
Jonm1010 said:
i would like to see those sources. I certainly have seen pundits and "experts" claim that they should give her a pass for political reasons (basically for what i just said about furthering the stereotype of being an anti-minority party and that given they arent going to win the battle its better to just be firm on their differences but not abrasive) but not because of the simple fact she is Latino.

I was speaking about folks on the street, just your regular folks being interviewed by the pundits.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
LovingSteam said:
I was speaking about folks on the street, just your regular folks being interviewed by the pundits.

Well people can be stupid. And small samples of street interviews for stations that typically thrive on sensationalism is probably not the best barometer of the country's pulse. But yes, if there are those who argue in her support solely on such superficial reasons it is pretty dumb.
 
APF said:
Which Senator are you talking about?

So far the actual people who will be voting on her seem to be cautious, and haven't thrown any (big) bombs. It's the folks who aren't voting (Romney, Gingrich, Huck, judicial watch groups, etc) who are throwing everything but the kitchen sink
 

APF

Member
PhoenixDark said:
So far the actual people who will be voting on her seem to be cautious, and haven't thrown any (big) bombs. It's the folks who aren't voting (Romney, Gingrich, Huck, judicial watch groups, etc) who are throwing everything but the kitchen sink
That's what I was thinking. What offices are they all elected to again?
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Oblivion said:
What's up with the Daily Show and Colbert Report not being on yesterday?

They typically take 1 week off every couple of months. They were overdue.
 
Obama is smart for picking her

-it handcuffs the GOP from South-Western states to avoid seeming anti-Latino for trying to vote against her when they need the support from the Latino community to get re-elected

-her experience nullifies any criticism about experience

-having Gingrinch and Limbaugh mouth off, it makes the moderate wing of the GOP think twice and anaylyse the damage being made by Limbaugh and Gingrinch
 
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' views on same-sex marriage have essentially stayed the same in the past year, with a majority of 57% opposed to granting such marriages legal status and 40% in favor of doing so. Though support for legal same-sex marriage is significantly higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1996, in recent years support has appeared to stall, peaking at 46% in 2007.


The lack of change in public opinion on same-sex marriage seen in the new USA Today/Gallup poll occurs in an environment in which an increasing number of states have taken steps to legalize such unions. Same-sex marriages are now legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, and Iowa, and will be legal in Vermont in September.

On Tuesday, California's Supreme Court refused to add that state to the list, by upholding the Proposition 8 referendum, approved by voters, that banned same-sex marriage in the state. The referendum was put on the November 2008 ballot in response to an earlier court decision that allowed same-sex couples to legally marry in California.

Among major demographic or attitudinal subgroups, self-identified liberals show the greatest support for legal gay marriage at 75% in the May 7-10 poll. By contrast, only 19% of conservatives think same-sex marriages should be legally valid.



Just a slim majority (55%) of Democrats approve of gay marriage, but they are more likely to do so than independents (45%) and Republicans (20%).

Younger Americans have typically been much more supportive of same-sex marriage than older Americans, and that is the case in the current poll. A majority of 18- to 29-year-olds think gay or lesbian couples should be allowed to legally marry, while support reaches only as high as 40% among the three older age groups.



A separate question in the poll found close to half of Americans, 48%, saying that allowing legal same-sex marriages would change society for the worse. That is more than three times the 13% who believe legal gay marriage would change society for the better. The remaining 38% say it would have no effect on society or do not have an opinion on the matter.

These results are essentially unchanged from a Gallup Poll conducted six years ago.



Support Higher for Gay Rights Not Involving Marriage

Though Americans seem reluctant to endorse gay marriage, the poll finds most Americans supporting gay rights in a variety of other areas.

In an update of a question Gallup has asked since 1977, a majority of 56% of Americans say gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal. A plurality (if not a majority) of the public has taken this view all but one time Gallup has asked the question this decade.



Americans' views about allowing gay men and lesbians to serve in the military have undergone a major shift since Bill Clinton attempted to change military policy early in his administration. No more than 43% of Americans favored military service by openly gay soldiers in 1993, according several NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls conducted that year. Clinton and the military eventually compromised on the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that allowed gays to serve as long as they did not disclose their sexual orientation.

Today, the latest USA Today/Gallup poll finds 69% of Americans in favor of military service by openly gay men and lesbians. While the Clinton-era policy remains in place, President Obama promised during the campaign to change it.

Americans also show broad support for gay rights in the following areas:

Sixty-seven percent say gay and lesbian domestic partners should have access to health insurance and other employee benefits.
Nearly three in four Americans, 73%, believe gay and lesbian domestic partners should have inheritance rights.
Sixty-seven percent favor a proposal to expand hate-crime laws to cover crimes committed against gays or lesbians.
Only 28% of Americans believe that gays or lesbians should not be hired as elementary school teachers. Sixty-nine percent believe they should be allowed to teach children.
Americans are somewhat less supportive of adoption rights for gay couples, though a majority (54%) still support this. The current level of support does represent an increase from Newsweek polls conducted in 2002 (46%) and 2004 (45%).

Implications

While Americans have become increasingly likely to believe that the law should not discriminate against gay individuals and gay couples, the public still seems reluctant at this point to extend those protections to the institution of marriage. Public support for gay marriage appears to have stalled in the last two years, even as the gay marriage movement has scored a number of legal and legislative victories at the state level in the past year.

In addition to the states that have recently legalized gay marriage, New Hampshire and New York are currently considering legislation to make gay marriage legal in their states. The California Supreme Court ruling announced Tuesday is a significant setback for the gay rights movement; however, it is possible for voters to undo Proposition 8 by passing a new referendum.

Clearly, much of the action on gay marriage policy is taking place at the state level. President Obama personally does not support gay marriage, but believes that states should decide the matter for themselves. Thus, he seems unlikely to seek a national standard. State courts have obviously played an important part in deciding gay marriage laws; at this point it is not known whether the issue will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court in the future.



Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,015 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 7-10, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Majority-Americans-Continue-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx


gm1208.jpg

gm2858.jpg

gm3344.jpg

gm4260.jpg

gm5719.jpg
 

besada

Banned
So Lindsey Graham wasn't lying when he said the remaining Abu Ghraib photos showed rape.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.
Allegations of rape and abuse were included in his 2004 report but the fact there were photographs was never revealed. He has now confirmed their existence in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.
 
PHOTOS The President at Nellis Air Force Base

610x.jpg

President Barack Obama walks past F-16 aircraft with Brigadier General Stanley Ted Kresge at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, Nevada

610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg

President Barack Obama inspects an array of solar panels generating electricity at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas

610x.jpg

President Barack Obama tours a solar power site with Col. Howard Belote and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at Nellis Air Force Base

610x.jpg


610x.jpg
 

Tamanon

Banned
So, I ws wondering what was with all the weird attacks on Sotomayor. Usually it's just an easy fallback of accusing her of being liberal and wanting to kill babies. Apparently she's never had any ruling having to do with abortion period. So that explains why they're going the long way around on slandering her.:lol
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.

Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.

Allegations of rape and abuse were included in his 2004 report but the fact there were photographs was never revealed. He has now confirmed their existence in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.

Good god. And we thought waterboarding was bad. This is absolutely awful, and if true, Obama is in criminal contempt of the WORLD if he blocks an investigation.
 
PantherLotus said:
Good god. And we thought waterboarding was bad. This is absolutely awful, and if true, Obama is in criminal contempt of the WORLD if he blocks an investigation.

Yep... he needs to let all of this out. America needs a complete reset and the only way we move on is to show our dirty deeds, be embarrassed, and APOLOGIZE.
 
Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: “I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid’s ***…. and the female soldier was taking pictures.”

Marines are crazy.
 
Lv99 Slacker said:
Yep. It's shit like this that makes me want to say that the reset button on humanity needs to hit over, and over, and over.

Nah, because then we'd repeat the same shit all over again.

We don't need a reset button, we need a hyperdrive button so we can get to the point where all of this is unthinkable.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Karma Kramer said:
Yep... he needs to let all of this out. America needs a complete reset and the only way we move on is to show our dirty deeds, be embarrassed, and APOLOGIZE.

BUT THEY WERE TERRORISTS

YOU GONNA APOLOGIZE TO SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO NUKE YOUR KIDS?
YOU WANT TO PUT OUR SOLDIERS IN HARM'S WAY SO YOU CAN FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF?
DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH THAT YOU WOULD BELIEVE THIS SLANDER?
GAY MARRIAGE!!!

THEY WERE TERRORISTS AND IT WAS RIGHT AFTER 9/11. WE DID WHAT WE HAD TO DO, AND NO EFFEMINATE LIBERAL IS GONNA TELL MY SOLDIERS WHAT TO DO. NOBODY!

THEY WERE TERRORISTS!!!
 
FlightOfHeaven said:
Nah, because then we'd repeat the same shit all over again.

We don't need a reset button, we need a hyperdrive button so we can get to the point where all of this is unthinkable.
It is unthinkable now, but it can and will still happen.
 

NetMapel

Guilty White Male Mods Gave Me This Tag
Ugghhh... Obama really should get a team together and investigate this whole torture deal thoroughly and prosecute whoever involved. I'm not just talking about the soldiers doing those dirty acts, but the high-ups who may know about what has happened. It is criminal that Obama is trying to sweep this under a rug and ignoring it. How the heck did the Bush administration allow this torture to go this far in the first place ?
 

OmniOne

Member
Investigations will show that this wasn't the act of a few bad apples. This behavior was intructed. Soldiers don't do these things unless ordered. Isn't it weird that these things happend in both guantanamo and abu ghraib? And they were documented. Documented in THOUSANDS of pictures.

Rumsfeld signed off on this, and the soldiers were punished for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom