Santorum Drops Out

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Sirisian]

I'm kind of surprised no one questioned Shanesan's claims. Some of them are legit problems, but again like I mentioned they are not black and white issues. I already said conservatives are horrible when it comes to this. Most of the issues you brought up have huge gray areas and complexities that Republicans don't want to admit to. Using some of them to attack Obama is a cheap shot. Especially when some problems didn't even start with Obama. He's just expected to clean up the mess in his first 3 years.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

Obama backed off on closing Guantanamo.
He continued indefinitely detaining alleged terrorists, WITHOUT TRIAL.
Obama protected the Bush administration from prosecution for torture.
Obama fought for, and won, the right to deny habeas corpus to detainees.
He blocked UN human rights investigations at Guantanamo.
He dropped charges against the CIA for destroying videotapes documenting torture of detainees.
He continued rendition of alleged terrorists to countries where they could be tortured.

He also passed an executive order to mandate periodic review. Currently there are 171 detainees there of which 88 are cleared for release. Basically it's a very complicated matter that both conservatives and liberals attack each other with. It does seem like the camp is winding down, but at the same time I hate to play devil's advocate that some of the people held there are people who would go back into fighting the US if sent home. (A very small percentage though since the numbers are questionable about how many have already done that). I'm against torture so this is a problem I've always had with Obama. However, you have to see things relative. The majority of Republican support torture as do the candidates when they were asked if they did during the Republican debates. (Romney wasn't there).

Originally Posted by Shanesan

Obama backed off of his promise to keep lobbyists out of his administration.

Heh you have articles like this which beg to differ. It's important to remember how many lobbyists there are for the legislature. Small changes like the recent STOCK act, which stops insider trading, is a good first step. Personally I think the only way to fully fix the problem is to mandate that senators and congressmen can't take in outside income for life if they choose to take the job.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

Obama authorized the assassination of U.S. citizens abroad.

This is a point I strongly agree with you on. Playing the Devil's advocate though is very easy to see why two of them were killed. The 16 year old killing is more unjustifiable though and is impossible to rationalize. I'm actually kind of surprised Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't arrested. It's was well known where he lived in Yemen.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

Obama rescinded on his promise to not prosecute marijuana users in states where it is legal, and pushed for a 5 year prison term for a California-legal medical marijuana dispensary operaton.

Yeah unescusable. The US's stance on these topics is horrible.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

Obama prosecuted child-soldier Omar Khadr using evidence gained through torture.

I don't have enough information about this to say anything. Sounds pretty bad though since the evidence during the case wasn't very good.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

Obama granted 27 waivers to oil companies drilling in the weeks following the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

How is this a problem? The Deepwater Horizon disaster is separate from other drilling. It would be like taking the Japanese approach and decommisioning all the Nuclear Reactors because one breaks. Kind of going overboard. (Also Republican would call him out if he stopped drilling. They like drilling or something. Obama gave a few speeches about drilling earlier this month).

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He extended the PATRIOT Act, with no reforms.

I don't want to justify his actions, but the Legislature also passed it fairly easily on both sides. You have to ask yourself, would a Republican do anything different? (Or just check how most of them voted).

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He dramatically increased government secrecy, denying more Freedom of Information Act requests in 2009 than Bush did in 2008.

Wasn't there more requests during his presidency? This seems like a relative issue. I ask because I think that was the case, but can't find a chart for the number of requests or where people are getting numbers.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while still campaigning on its behalf...

It was a compromise between insurance companies and hospitals I believe. What specifically was bad about this? Not to mention the huge republican opposition to a public option. Obama did the most reasonable thing I believe.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He defended Don't Ask Don't Tell from legal challenges and then "celebrated" its repeal.
He reaffirmed his opposition to same-sex marriage though he campaigns as if he supports it.

To be fair most politicians are horrible with this topic. The only politicians I've seen that have strong positions are either very religious or had one of their kids come out creating the extremes. And then there's Hillary who is for all human rights generally. This recent piece from today covers a lot of things. You get the feeling he doesn't want to say anything or do anything to give a reason for attack on the subject. That and he has shown he doesn't want an ammendment either way with his stance on the Defense of Marriage Act. For now it seems like a state issue.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He granted waivers to 30 companies, including McDonalds, exempting them from health care reform.

Woah, I never heard of that. Apparently it's around 1000 companies, not 30. It's a "one-year exemption". Their reasoning seems legit though. I don't see the problem. Sounds like the changes need some time.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He announced the single largest arms deal in history, of $60bil worth of arms, to Saudi Arabian dictatorship.

That's a lot of exports. Not gonna lie. It's a hard deal to turn down. That and Saudi Arabia is like the strongest middle eastern ally I believe.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He gave permits to BP and other oil companies, exempting them from environmental protection laws.

That was a misconception. The exemption that was cited was for a tested project that was funded with the stimulus. The exclusion was not related to oil and was merely to allow the project to be done. (It was an untested project before and it had a risk involved).

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He appointed Monsanto executive Michael Taylor to the FDA.
He appointed a former Monsanto lobbyist as Chief Agriculture Negotiator.

I think this is why some lobbyists are afraid to register. It's a stigma that really holds some politicians back. Did they do something bad or is it the perceived conflict of interest?

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He appointed Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury.

I wouldn't worry about it. whatever conservatives thought he did on purpose seems to have hurt him severely. He already mentioned Obama isn't going to select him again. Probably because of the controversy. If you have more information about the case I'd be willing to read it as the whole thing confused me.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He increased the use of combat drones in Pakistan.

It's been going down now after recent incidents. I think a lot of it has to do with the poor border between the countries and Pakistan's apathy toward harboring terrorists. That is they tend not to do anything about it.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He passed a massive Wall Street bailout at the expense of the taxpayers.

You should research this more. It actually didn't effect taxpayers at all. I think this misconception came from a Santorum ad. The $250 billion Wall Street bailouts from TARP were paid back in full with interest.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He played down the importance of the WikiLeaks documents.

To be fair they were essentially a random set of 250K documents. He was probably told about the contents of them and the security implications. Most of the stuff I've actually read was useless information.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He pushed for mandatory DNA testing for those arrested for crimes, even if they have not been convicted.

I really don't see the problem with this. DNA testing is a valid reason for conviction and must be done before a conviction to link evidence.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He undercuts whistleblowers.

To be fair some whistleblowers are breaking laws while doing so. Not condoning any of them sets an interesting precedent that could be exploited with false whistleblowing. There are numerous laws in place (some contradictory) that allow whistleblowing without reprecussions for instance in the US militrary and government. I guess it would depend on which case you were talking about.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He promised $30bil in military aid to Israel over the next decade.

Yeah that's the one where they must use a lot of it to purchase weapons from us. We have a fairly advanced weapons program that is mostly subsidized by such deals. It's actually not as bad as it sounds. It was actually one of his campaign promises to keep Israel as a close ally. Most of the money essentially goes back into the US economy indirectly. I'm not a big fan of Israel, but from the people I talk to from there online they seem far more stable than the surrounding countries. (Even if some of their decisions are questionable).

Originally Posted by Shanesan

He gives $250,000 to Chevrolet every time they make a Volt.

That number was grossly exagerated you realize that right? It was mostly a sensationalized headline to get readers and assumed only 6K cars would ever be produced. This article explains the flawed math pretty well.

Originally Posted by Shanesan

I have links for all those.

Sigh, why didn't you link them all. It would have saved time.

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

A national sales tax is the way to go, but it needs to be capped (as in Amendment) so the greedy elected 'elite' cant grab more and more of it.

You realize that would mean switching from a progressive tax system to a regressive tax system. Poor people aren't taxed currently so the change would basically just tax them more while removing current taxes on the wealthy (since their investments wouldn't be taxed. Only their purchases). This allows the wealthy to accrue wealth more easily. Basically your stance on this depends on if you think wealthy people are being held back by a progressive tax and could do more for the economy. A lot of conservatives believe that. It's a very complex subject so I'd recommend for you to read up on it. (I've already stated I prefer progressive tax systems since they've been proven to create a more linear wealth distribution rather than gaps, but it's mostly based on an idea for increasing overall quality of life).

Originally Posted by Malorn

He's also already made his fortune so its not like a higher tax is going to really affect him.

Buffet has talked about long-term capital gains taxes actually in this regards. Those kinds of taxes would affect him and he understands that and talked about them before.

[Shanesan]

Sirisian, I love you. Taking on the tough stuff. You're pretty awesome.

I'll actually respond to most of the stuff later. I'm busy at the moment.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Sigh, why didn't you link them all. It would have saved time.

Ran out of space.

[Figment]

I like how you attempt to claim Buffett for your argument while clearly not even having read what he had to say. I also like how you make the outrageous claim that rich people don't trust the government, that they would spend all their money in the interest of other citizens and the even bigger ones where you pretend that national departments sit around doong nothing all day, while also ignoring that centralised government makes for a smaller government as state governments have everything double, where you prefer over 50 same job departments over one with subsidiaries for proper execution on a state level.

I don't think you want to though, since you think states need significantly different laws and trust that each State will do what is best for its citizens. Clearly the opinion on what is best has always differed greatly between the states to the point of war. And had it not been won by the north, I do wonder if the south would have moved beyond segregation and ethnic suppression already.

Also, you ignore that the Gates foundation does not supply funds for community stuff like the repair of bridges. It is not their task to. Buffett states he and others would not mind paying more taxes and indicates that this would be good for the economy. His point though is that HE could do this and others would do this, but that there are plenty others that need to be told to, since it is not now and that this has to be fair. Not just among them, but also towards other people who earn far less and yet pay more. This is not as you try to make it out an individual issue nor solved with a donation. It is about a structural fair tax policy change for ALL people currently exploiting low taxes on HUGE earnings.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Ignored because it isn't relevant. Community things are funded by communities and states, not the federal government. People who want to contribute to community stuff are free to donate that to whatever charity organization they want. They can also donate to the state if they have strong convictions - the state won't refuse a donation from a citizen.



And like states won't refuse, neither will the federal government. If Buffet wants to donate his money to the government he's welcome to.

But he doesn't.

He puts his money in the Gates Foundation.

And you keep yapping on about being "Fair" - fair is voluntary donations to the government and flat taxes. Forcing people to do anything is not fair at all.

You have a strange concept of fairness thinking that other people are entitled to my stuff simply because I have more stuff.

Well then, let's abolish taxes all together and trust on the egocentrism of people to do the right thing and allow them to decide just how much money they hand over to the government or to community projects. Regardless of how much money they have.


If you truly believe that works, you have absolutely no sense of judgement of people. Though that's quite apparant anyway.

[Shanesan]

Originally Posted by Figment

Well then, let's abolish taxes all together and trust on the egocentrism of people to do the right thing and allow them to decide just how much money they hand over to the government or to community projects. Regardless of how much money they have.


If you truly believe that works, you have absolutely no sense of judgement of people. Though that's quite apparant anyway.

I don't think you read that Malorn has belief that there should be SMALL government - not NO government.

So you can adjust your judgement and accusations that direction.

Secondly,

while also ignoring that centralised government makes for a smaller government as state governments have everything double, where you prefer over 50 same job departments over one with subsidiaries for proper execution on a state level.

A smaller government, huh? Okay, let's assume that you're correct (when you're not). If the accountability goes to the lower denominator - the states, where people actually live where these laws are passed... By all means I would pay more temporarily to hold people accountable in my own state and get the Federal bureaucracy out of it.

Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying you want one big government. One big government that is centralized. One place where all the decisions are made. One place where the religious right can try to trounce on the rights of all people. One place where Monsanto can slime their way in to get their crops ignored by the nations Food and Drug Administration. One place where they can ruin our children's future with something like No Child Left Behind. One place where those in power can strip ALL of our rights one by one and have a force so vast and fortresses so tall that you can't say boo about it.

Is that what you want? If you separate where and how laws are passed, it makes it harder for these groups to come and take over the country. They would have to take it over state by state instead.

Divided we fall, together we suffocate. Work as a team, stay separate, and we prosper. They're treading all over us and you're grinning and asking for more.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Shanesan

I don't think you read that Malorn has belief that there should be SMALL government - not NO government.

So you can adjust your judgement and accusations that direction.

Understand sarcasm in the context of his quote. He claims that if people want to give money away they can right now. The argument comes down to him saying there is no need to make people pay taxes, because they would pay the government anyway. He doesn't understand that taxes for ALL people intead of relying on philantropy is actually fair as it makes sure everyone contributes their bit, especially if they've got an overabundance of money.

He's deliberately ignoring the point or pretending he doesn't get it as he is continuously replying to and with a stupidity, as usual.

Secondly, A smaller government, huh? Okay, let's assume that you're correct (when you're not).

By default, I am correct as one government body for general things is smaller than 52 who all have their own administration sections, their own template and form design, etc, etc, etc. You're doing things over 50 times now which could easily be done by one body.

If the accountability goes to the lower denominator - the states, where people actually live where these laws are passed... By all means I would pay more temporarily to hold people accountable in my own state and get the Federal bureaucracy out of it.

Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying you want one big government. One big government that is centralized. One place where all the decisions are made. One place where the religious right can try to trounce on the rights of all people. One place where Monsanto can slime their way in to get their crops ignored by the nations Food and Drug Administration. One place where they can ruin our children's future with something like No Child Left Behind. One place where those in power can strip ALL of our rights one by one and have a force so vast and fortresses so tall that you can't say boo about it.

Do you realise what I'm saying? No, you don't as you think from your current republican federal state of being. I'm thinking from a democracy point of view.

Consider that I would suggest a government of actual percentile representation. The religious extremist would be a stupidly small group to consider then. You know, where your vote goes to the person you voted for and not to that of the other party because they got more locals rooting for them and politically applied district lines do not matter AT ALL in determining the outcome of elections.

Is that what you want? If you separate where and how laws are passed, it makes it harder for these groups to come and take over the country. They would have to take it over state by state instead.

No, in my setup they would have to take over the populace of the entire nation at once, where they could not gain control over the state ("province level") of most parts of the nation, nor the nation itself, because they'd be a non-factor in the overall elections.

Divided we fall, together we suffocate. Work as a team, stay separate, and we prosper. They're treading all over us and you're grinning and asking for more.

Do you know the saying: Divide and conquer? The main reason the religious extreme bothers you so much is because you ARE divided as a nation.

[Red Beard]

I am all for the separation of powers in government. Without a counterbalance you will eventually come to a monopoly, just as you do in the markets. Separation of power turns selfish ends against itself (to a degree) through accountability...(not to dig up a dead body), but back when Americans were actually free to do what they wanted as long as they had consent of the parties involved (pre-social insurance/federal reserve/income tax era), I suspect that was the reason for the 2nd ammendment; counter-balance of power from a government disregarding the will of the people.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Red Beard]

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered"

Love that quote; and I think most people don't realize how true it is; given that HJR 192 (1933) Rendered everyone bankrupt; (banruptcy trust where everyone agreed not to demand payment in gold/silver, and instead would accept promises to pay); not able to hold a perfected title on property thus creating a feudal system so large, there's no contrast for most people to perceive it. And as some of you guys may know, the deed to your house has you listed as the 'tenant', even if you've actually "paid for" (discharged in reality") your house, just as Jefferson predicted...

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Malorn, you do realise that absolute capitalism gave rise to communism as a counter-force because it created an exploitation of workforce?

Strange concept as it may sound to you, but having a bit more social responsible free market economy prevents communism from getting strong support.

Taking care of your fellow countrymen when able to is actually not just fair, it's a moral responsibility and a tool to improve the economy and the effectiveness of your employees. And in the end you, your economy and your company benefit greatly from motivated, wealthy employees who feel appreciated, secure and are not stressed because of job insecurity, healthcare issues, having to lick the higher up's arses (meaning bad decision making is questioned) and that people aren't exploited for their money - like your whole banking system which is the exact opposite and resulted in great economic and social malpractice.

Pure, unbridled capitalism corrupts. The current economic poor climate has been created in the USA by banking systems that are completely capitalist in setup without any remorse or concern for selling bad products to people using lies.


Your ideal society is ran by Goldman & Sachs? Because with a free market without any regulation to prevent excesses and exploitation, you will run into these situations.

What do you think for instance of hatch funds that buy up companies just to make a short term profit by selling all their assets individualy to the highest bidder? The companies, employees and social impact of the destruction of these companies for short term gains is not beneficial to society or the economy. The only ones profiting from this are the hatch funds and they don't contribute much to the economy. Hatch funds, a product of unregulated free market stock exchange, are counter to the "American Dream" where you can make it if you just work hard: you will be bought and sold out whenever the opportunity arises. That is NOT what good business is all about and it is not rewarding for those people who worked hard to get that company to the point it becomes interesting to split it up and get as much money out of the real estate et all as possible. Companies are not created with the intend to be cut into pieces at the first opportunity to make short term gains for the elite few.

A world that only thinks in individualist ways without regards for the bigger picture will end up destroying itself. Freedom for the individual is great, but it should not cost every other individual. Because if you didn't realise it yet, society is made up of individuals that form groups, peoples, nations and economies, together.

[Malorn]

Meh.