Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

1,501 to 1,550 of 1,595 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>

Which is nothing compared to what he's allegedly planning in Mali.


Eh, one more.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Samnell wrote:
The antebellum federal position on slavery leaves a lot to be desired, but it was very far from an enthusiastic proslavery force. It was often callously indifferent (just the policy preferred: let the state sort it out) but in order to get territory once free in fact (Texas was de jure free, due to Mexican abolition, but the Texans fought a war to preserve their slavery.) explicitly opened to slavery by a federal act (not just left to the locals to decide, as the Compromise of 1850 and later the Kansas-Nebraska Act would do) you have to go to the Dred Scott case.

It was a bit more complicated than that. Originally when the Texans rebelled against Mexico to preserve their slaveholding rights they wanted to immediately join the U.S. as most of them were expatriate Americans to start with. The U.S. knowing full well of the character of most of the settlers wanted nothing to do with them, essentially forcing Texas to go it alone as a republic. However they never truly got thier financial house in order and wound up selling large tracts of land to the U.S. to get some hard currency in the coffers. When what was left of Texas was finally admitted to the Union, the very top of it was shaved off and grafted to Oklahoma to preserve the Mason-Dixie line, creating the Oklahoma Panhandle.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You mean the Missouri Compromise Line.

The Mason-Dixon line is the border between Pennsylvannia and Maryland.


thejeff wrote:

So you don't want states to be absolute. You want the Federal Government to be able to override them when they're doing wrong.

But you also don't want the Federal Government to have power over the states because it might force them to do something wrong.

I'm confused. What do you want? How would you structure the state/federal relationship if you could? Your claims seem contradictory.

How would I structure the state/federal relationship? Well, If I were dictator-for-a-day, I would make sure that Federal law stays within its enumerated powers. ( The list of enumerated powers could use alot of cleaning up to be sure, as well.)

This is what I mean. The Federal government should have a narrow set of powers that supercedes the State and the individual. (civil rights, national defense, blah blah.)

The states should have a slightly larger set of powers that supercedes the local governments.

The local governments should have an even larger set of powers that supercedes the individual.

The individual should be the one that gets to decide most things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So you don't want states to be absolute. You want the Federal Government to be able to override them when they're doing wrong.

But you also don't want the Federal Government to have power over the states because it might force them to do something wrong.

I'm confused. What do you want? How would you structure the state/federal relationship if you could? Your claims seem contradictory.

How would I structure the state/federal relationship? Well, If I were dictator-for-a-day, I would make sure that Federal law stays within its enumerated powers. ( The list of enumerated powers could use alot of cleaning up to be sure, as well.)

This is what I mean. The Federal government should have a narrow set of powers that supercedes the State and the individual. (civil rights, national defense, blah blah.)

The states should have a slightly larger set of powers that supercedes the local governments.

The local governments should have an even larger set of powers that supercedes the individual.

The individual should be the one that gets to decide most things.

That sounds remarkably similar to how the system actually works. I suspect the only real difference is how broadly the boundaries are drawn around those "enumerated powers".


You would be correct, then thejeff.

I fail to see how the drug war provides for general welfare. (Edit-try telling California dispensary owners raided by the DEA that "this is how the system currently works". Coming soon: tell it to Oregonians and Colorado-ites{?} too.)
I fail to see how mandating that people buy healthcare provides for general welfare. (i could see the case for nationalised tho.)
I fail to see how most of wars have been "executing the laws of the union, suppressing an insurrection, or repeling an invasion."

So on and so on.

If someone really wants "one nation, one law" then I would imagine that they cant wait to see President Obama stand trial for violating the War Powers Act.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
If someone really wants "one nation, one law" then I would imagine that they cant wait to see President Obama stand trial for violating the War Powers Act.

I'd rather he be placed before a Revolutionary Tribunal of His Victims.

Up against the wall, motherf!+@er!

Vive le Galt!


TheWhiteknife wrote:

You would be correct, then thejeff.

I fail to see how the drug war provides for general welfare. (Edit-try telling California dispensary owners raided by the DEA that "this is how the system currently works". Coming soon: tell it to Oregonians and Colorado-ites{?} too.)
I fail to see how mandating that people buy healthcare provides for general welfare. (i could see the case for nationalised tho.)
I fail to see how most of wars have been "executing the laws of the union, suppressing an insurrection, or repeling an invasion."

So on and so on.

I could make an argument for all of those under various clauses, even where I personally agree with you. "General welfare" and "common defense" among others are very broad.

Which raises the question of who decides whether something fall under the enumerated powers. Someone has to. In our system it's the Supreme Court.
I disagree with them on a lot of things. I'm sure you do too. Someone needs to have the final word.


LazarX wrote:


It was a bit more complicated than that. Originally when the Texans rebelled against Mexico to preserve their slaveholding rights they wanted to immediately join the U.S. as most of them were expatriate Americans to start with. The U.S. knowing full well of the character of most of the settlers wanted nothing to do with them, essentially forcing Texas to go it alone as a republic. However they never truly got thier financial house in order and wound up selling large tracts of land to the U.S. to get some hard currency in the coffers. When what was left of Texas was finally admitted to the Union, the very top of it was shaved off and grafted to Oklahoma to preserve the Mason-Dixie line, creating the Oklahoma Panhandle.

Yeah, that was a bit much to cram into a parenthetical when trying to summarize four score and seven years of policy. :) I also skipped over how Sam Houston arranged things to convince the Tyler administration, which also wanted Texas as something to run for reelection on since most everyone in both parties hated Tyler by this point, that the British were plotting to prop Texas up financially in exchange for abolition. And John C. Calhoun's bizarre turn at not taking yes for an answer. (The British more or less signed off on annexation and then he wrote an angry screed to them about how they opposed it. And that's not even the first time Calhoun went to war against his own cause without realizing it. Dude was a nut.)


No, seriously. Try Obama before a jury of his victims.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:

You would be correct, then thejeff.

I fail to see how the drug war provides for general welfare. (Edit-try telling California dispensary owners raided by the DEA that "this is how the system currently works". Coming soon: tell it to Oregonians and Colorado-ites{?} too.)
I fail to see how mandating that people buy healthcare provides for general welfare. (i could see the case for nationalised tho.)
I fail to see how most of wars have been "executing the laws of the union, suppressing an insurrection, or repeling an invasion."

So on and so on.

If someone really wants "one nation, one law" then I would imagine that they cant wait to see President Obama stand trial for violating the War Powers Act.

The health care situation is a result of the flaws in our process of passing laws. I'm willing to accept it because it's a step in the right direction, but we really need to move to a single payer system. I doubt we'll see that until 2020 or later though.

I think the war on drugs is only part of the problem of law enforcement in our culture, where it's presumed that you can't be an elected official unless you're "tough on crime". There are law enforcement abuses at all levels of government too. The penal system needs to be re-nationalized or states need to take it over, it should not be a for profit system.

Overall, I'm with you on the wars. I've gotten past my days of wanting to try them all as war criminals, but I would like to see major changes inhow we treat war in our country. I think the only way decent sized cuts to defense spending will happen is through the fiscal cliff.

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Eh, one more.

Why bother? All these "liberals" here will do is make excuses for our Murderer-in-Chief (who, it seems, is far more bloodthirsty than his predecessor).


Drinking my coffee and reading about state murder in a Florida reform school

Where is Fouquier-Tinville?

The Exchange

houstonderek wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Eh, one more.
Why bother? All these "liberals" here will do is make excuses for our Murderer-in-Chief (who, it seems, is far more bloodthirsty than his predecessor).

war is only bad when a republican does it. Doing bad things only counts when the other guy does it. Where is that b*&++ that camped on bush's yard at?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

She was running as Roseanne's vice-presidential candidate on an anti-Obama platform for socialist revolution. Any other stupid questions?

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed some posts. Please don't insult other posters.

Liberty's Edge

Andrew R wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Eh, one more.
Why bother? All these "liberals" here will do is make excuses for our Murderer-in-Chief (who, it seems, is far more bloodthirsty than his predecessor).
war is only bad when a republican does it. Doing bad things only counts when the other guy does it. Where is that b#$@% that camped on bush's yard at?

She's wondering why the media stopped listening to her when Obama was elected and started actively denigrating her.

Of course, if you want a specific geographic location, I'd have to shoot her a message and ask. You can always find her Cindy's Soapbox site also, and listen for yourself what her opinion of Obama is, and how little she thinks of him.

Cindy has been consistent in her anti-war stance, regardless of who is in charge, which is much more than I can say about any of the "it's only bad when the G.O.P. does it" Democratic Obama sycophants.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
which is much more than I can say about any of the "it's only bad when the G.O.P. does it" Democratic Obama sycophants.

Who certainly don't participate on these boards. Literally no one here has expressed any happiness about the current state of things vis a vis foreign policy and national "defense."

Heck, it's one big reason I'm rooting for the fiscal "cliff."


I want to live under this Obama.


meatrace wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
which is much more than I can say about any of the "it's only bad when the G.O.P. does it" Democratic Obama sycophants.

Who certainly don't participate on these boards. Literally no one here has expressed any happiness about the current state of things vis a vis foreign policy and national "defense."

Heck, it's one big reason I'm rooting for the fiscal "cliff."

Yeah, HD, IIRC, Citizen Meatrace said he would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq if only George hadn't resorted to telling lies to get us there.

And, again, IIRC, Obama supporters on the boards took a clear and principled opposition to the bombardment and invasion of Libya. Oh, wait a minute...


Andrew R wrote:
war is only bad when a republican does it.

War is not inherently bad. It is a political tool, and its moral value depends on how it is wielded. War waged to achieve a decisive, positive end, for instance, is better than a war which drags on and has little impact on the state of affairs.

War on the Taliban - mind you, not a "war" in the complete traditional sense, but rather a war in the sense that it requires a protracted, organized, military campaign - is potentially a worthwhile war. War against Iraq, on the other hand, is much less easily defended.

With that in mind, then, how many bad wars has Obama started?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Yeah, HD, IIRC, Citizen Meatrace said he would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq if only George hadn't resorted to telling lies to get us there.

And, again, IIRC, Obama supporters on the boards took a clear and principled opposition to the bombardment and invasion of Libya. Oh, wait a minute...

I did, though I meant it in the same way that I "supported" Clinton's wars. I don't believe that the military can't be used to affect good elsewhere in the world. The lying is what bothered me more than anything though, it's true. By and large the American people aren't warmongers, even when our leaders are. Do you think if GWB had a speech saying "Look, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, his power is checked, and his saber rattling accomplishes nothing BUT he tried to kill my daddy so we're gonna get him!" that you would have gotten more than 10% popular support? I would have supported "regime change" through assassination though.

I often wonder how quickly world leaders might find peaceful solutions if it were feasible to each assassinate one another without the lives of the citizenry being endangered...

I think that it's insane to have a military as big as ours without trying to make something good of it. I'd be for some sort of military intervention due to human rights abuses as well. I just question the targets.

And...US invasion of Libya? You mean setting up a no fly zone?

I guess I'm just not as unwaveringly isolationist as you guys.


Scott Betts wrote:
With that in mind, then, how many bad wars has Obama started?

This is the distinction that needs to be made, as you say, since war can be a tool of global social progress.

And the answer, as far as I can tell, is 1. Assuming you consider drone strikes into Pakistan a separate war, which it's not unreasonable to do.


I didn't realize it took 20,000 sorties over the entirety of Libya to set up a no-fly zone.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

They were flying. We said no. Ergo, a no fly zone.

:P


Kryzbyn wrote:

They were flying. We said no. Ergo, a no fly zone.

:P

HEYYYYY long time no see.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
With that in mind, then, how many bad wars has Obama started?

This is the distinction that needs to be made, as you say, since war can be a tool of global social progress.

And the answer, as far as I can tell, is 1. Assuming you consider drone strikes into Pakistan a separate war, which it's not unreasonable to do.

Well considering there are significant civilian casualties, no matter what the administration says to the contrary, the fact that we are not at war with Pakistan, and that there is no solid evidence that these strikes are anything other than the very thing the administration says we're fighting--terrorism--I wouldn't call it a bad war. I'd call it crimes against humanity.


meatrace wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
With that in mind, then, how many bad wars has Obama started?

This is the distinction that needs to be made, as you say, since war can be a tool of global social progress.

And the answer, as far as I can tell, is 1. Assuming you consider drone strikes into Pakistan a separate war, which it's not unreasonable to do.

Given that we started drone strikes into Pakistan in 2004, it's hard to say Obama started it. The number of strikes has grown under Obama.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I didn't realize it took 20,000 sorties over the entirety of Libya to set up a no-fly zone.

Just curious, how many sorties do you think it does take? Are you implying that no fly zones are normally set up and maintained with something else besides sending planes to patrol?


Shadowborn wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
With that in mind, then, how many bad wars has Obama started?

This is the distinction that needs to be made, as you say, since war can be a tool of global social progress.

And the answer, as far as I can tell, is 1. Assuming you consider drone strikes into Pakistan a separate war, which it's not unreasonable to do.

Well considering there are significant civilian casualties, no matter what the administration says to the contrary, the fact that we are not at war with Pakistan, and that there is no solid evidence that these strikes are anything other than the very thing the administration says we're fighting--terrorism--I wouldn't call it a bad war. I'd call it crimes against humanity.

What about Pakistans intentional destabilization of Afghanistan, because they want a weak neighbor so they can focus on their long term feud with India?


Irontruth wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
With that in mind, then, how many bad wars has Obama started?

This is the distinction that needs to be made, as you say, since war can be a tool of global social progress.

And the answer, as far as I can tell, is 1. Assuming you consider drone strikes into Pakistan a separate war, which it's not unreasonable to do.

Well considering there are significant civilian casualties, no matter what the administration says to the contrary, the fact that we are not at war with Pakistan, and that there is no solid evidence that these strikes are anything other than the very thing the administration says we're fighting--terrorism--I wouldn't call it a bad war. I'd call it crimes against humanity.
What about Pakistans intentional destabilization of Afghanistan, because they want a weak neighbor so they can focus on their long term feud with India?

It's all very complicated. Pakistan has, and likely still is, supported the Taliban as you say. They are also our ally in fighting the Taliban. They have cooperated in with us in the drone strikes within their borders, since those strikes are aimed at rebel/militant groups who oppose the Pakistani government. They don't admit this publicly because the strikes are unpopular with the Pakistani people.

Of course, how much of the government's support is due to US pressure/bribery is another question.
It's still less simple than: We must declare war on Pakistan to attack targets within it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:


Shadowborn wrote:
Well considering there are significant civilian casualties, no matter what the administration says to the contrary, the fact that we are not at war with Pakistan, and that there is no solid evidence that these strikes are anything other than the very thing the administration says we're fighting--terrorism--I wouldn't call it a bad war. I'd call it crimes against humanity.
What about Pakistans intentional destabilization of Afghanistan, because they want a weak neighbor so they can focus on their long term feud with India?

Are you saying that is justification for killing their civilians with unlawful attacks? Because it's not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I didn't realize it took 20,000 sorties over the entirety of Libya to set up a no-fly zone.
Just curious, how many sorties do you think it does take? Are you implying that no fly zones are normally set up and maintained with something else besides sending planes to patrol?

I have no idea how many sorties it usually takes. I thought I had recalled that the original "no-fly zone" was around Benghazi, not the whole country, though.

Either way, I find it hard to believe that bombing Majer, or murdering Qadaffi's grandchildren had anything to do with a no-fly zone.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

They were flying. We said no. Ergo, a no fly zone.

:P

HEYYYYY long time no see.

Howdy! Had to bow out of poli threads fer a bit to regain some SAN.


[Walks through the thread naked]

Oh, hey Kryzbie!

[Waves]


Oh, look.

Citizen Truth's favorite linguistics professor on Obama's human rights record.

Towards the bottom is a juicy bit about Libya.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Not helping the SAN...


Shadowborn wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Shadowborn wrote:
Well considering there are significant civilian casualties, no matter what the administration says to the contrary, the fact that we are not at war with Pakistan, and that there is no solid evidence that these strikes are anything other than the very thing the administration says we're fighting--terrorism--I wouldn't call it a bad war. I'd call it crimes against humanity.
What about Pakistans intentional destabilization of Afghanistan, because they want a weak neighbor so they can focus on their long term feud with India?
Are you saying that is justification for killing their civilians with unlawful attacks? Because it's not.

No, I'm curious if you'd also call that a crime against humanity. Also, do you think the Taliban and AQ would have as much presence in Pakistan if their government had put more effort into closing the border and not engaged in actions that helped destabilize Afghanistan?

I agree, war sucks. I doubt there has ever been a war where civilians weren't killed. But if you're going to make claims of crimes against humanity, you're going to need a much stronger argument. Pakistans government, the Taliban and AQ also are party to what is going on.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Oh, look.

Citizen Truth's favorite linguistics professor on Obama's human rights record.

Towards the bottom is a juicy bit about Libya.

He's an interesting guy. Sometimes his arguments remind me of the really nitpicky arguments about RAW in the rules forum.

Colorless green ideas do indeed sleep furiously though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Shadowborn wrote:
Well considering there are significant civilian casualties, no matter what the administration says to the contrary, the fact that we are not at war with Pakistan, and that there is no solid evidence that these strikes are anything other than the very thing the administration says we're fighting--terrorism--I wouldn't call it a bad war. I'd call it crimes against humanity.
What about Pakistans intentional destabilization of Afghanistan, because they want a weak neighbor so they can focus on their long term feud with India?
Are you saying that is justification for killing their civilians with unlawful attacks? Because it's not.

No, I'm curious if you'd also call that a crime against humanity. Also, do you think the Taliban and AQ would have as much presence in Pakistan if their government had put more effort into closing the border and not engaged in actions that helped destabilize Afghanistan?

I agree, war sucks. I doubt there has ever been a war where civilians weren't killed. But if you're going to make claims of crimes against humanity, you're going to need a much stronger argument. Pakistans government, the Taliban and AQ also are party to what is going on.

That's the thing: it's not war. It's our President giving the military carte blanche to use drone strikes to bomb civilian areas in Pakistan, a sovereign country with whom we are not at war. Whatever our beef with the Pakistani government may be, it's not the government nor their military who are paying the price, but their people. These supposed "surgical strikes" have killed hundreds since 2004, 178 of them children. It's estimated that between 10-50 civilians die for every "terrorist" killed, and most of those killed aren't even highly-ranked individuals. People in these areas are terrified to gather together or even go outside. That's terrorism. That the Pakistani government is complicit in this is terrible, but our government and our military are ultimately responsible for these deaths.

Would you be so blase about this if it were your hometown being bombed? Would you be willing to live in these conditions if the government continued to give their spiel of "minimal civilian casualties" and that it was for the protection of the country? Al Qaeda might as well use the second video I posted as recruiting material, because this seems a great way to increase the anti-American sentiment that causes acts of terrorism in the first place. I find the idea that these tactics "make us safer" to be highly suspect.


Shadowborn wrote:
That's the thing: it's not war. It's our President giving the military carte blanche to use drone strikes to bomb civilian areas in Pakistan, a sovereign country with whom we are not at war. Whatever our beef with the Pakistani government may be, it's not the government nor their military who are paying the price, but their people.

As I said before, that's a very skewed way of looking at the situation. Yes, we are not at war with Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan is at least a nominal ally in our conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, some of whom are resident in Pakistan.

Pakistan pretty much created the Taliban back in the '90s. The ISI almost certainly still has ties to Taliban leadership, but the Taliban also are linked to militant groups inside Pakistan that oppose the Pakistan government. The Pakistan military has battled the Taliban within Pakistan several times during the last few years.

Those are the same groups that we are targeting with our attacks into Pakistan. We get intelligence from Pakistan and share some, though we don't trust their intelligence service enough to fully cooperate. Those strikes have had at least some cooperation and tacit support from the Pakistan government.
Since we are striking largely at rebel groups in territories not fully under Pakistani control and doing so with some support from the Pakistan government, why should we have to declare war on that very government to do so? That whole part of the argument makes no sense.

It is complicated by the fact that the strikes are very unpopular with the Pakistani people, as you might expect, and thus the government can't admit its support and occasionally protests. It's also an open question how much of its support is because its interests align with ours in opposing the militants and how much is due to bribery or threats.

The rest of your post I largely agree with. The strikes, like all warfare, particularly asymetric warfare, take a huge toll on civilians and probably counter-productive. It's really only the "But we're not at war with Pakistan" part that just doesn't have anything to do with the real situation.

Liberty's Edge

I don't even understand why anyone is bothering here. The right wingers don't even realize that there ARE people on the left who think Obama is a P.O.S., and the "lefties" here would be crying bloody murder if Bush were still in office and this crap was still going on.

This thread is a prefect example of why American "liberalism" is a joke.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:

I don't even understand why anyone is bothering here. The right wingers don't even realize that there ARE people on the left who think Obama is a P.O.S., and the "lefties" here would be crying bloody murder if Bush were still in office and this crap was still going on.

This thread is a prefect example of why American "liberalism" is a joke.

Your complaining is one dimensional and boring.


When all else fails ... kill them all, let the Gawds sort them out. *hic*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I don't even understand why anyone is bothering here. The right wingers don't even realize that there ARE people on the left who think Obama is a P.O.S., and the "lefties" here would be crying bloody murder if Bush were still in office and this crap was still going on.

This thread is a prefect example of why American "liberalism" is a joke.

Your complaining is one dimensional and boring.

Yeah, HD, you got to change it up every once and a while. Like, say, preaching nonviolence to the oppressed and then condoning NATO airstrikes that kill children.


Lurking Comrade Metamorphosis, if you're out there, question for you in the Cultural Marxism thread.

Lantern Lodge

Killing children over there isn't as bad as over here, kids here are coddled, kids there are not, and often take up arms or walk bombs right up to soldiers, counting on americans to hesitate.

I was in the military, this was one of the things we got talked to death about, all the kids that would carry bombs hidden under clothes or even in their teddy bear if they had one. It is not pretty but their idea of kids does not match ours, and over there using kids is an acceptable tactic, so are you willing to die and let your buddies die, because of a kid that is going to die anyway?

1,501 to 1,550 of 1,595 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Living under Obama's presidency All Messageboards