kapkomet

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 20, 2009 -> 05:29 PM) Obama shakes hands with President of Mexico Felipe Calderon's dog, appears to bow to him. The level of embarrassment to this country by this man's actions here are unspeakable. I know, it's supposed to be funny, but on the serious side, you know damn well that this is not anywhere comparable, even for a joke.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 20, 2009 -> 04:36 PM) Re point #1: When you are the big dog, you have to set an example. If you play rough the smaller dogs play rougher to get your attention. Re point 2 and 3 - the stuff we are doing is as much for our more squeamish allies to get back on our side than it is for the people we are fighting against. Every action has a reaction and consequences. The message might be directed at Head of State X, but it might really be meant to be heard by States L,M and N and the people of Y and Z. We need to find a balance between being too soft and too hard. I think a part of what you're seeing is the pendulum swinging back to something more reasonable than what we've seen. Given that we've had a rather extremist policy in the last six years (and the truth is, if our policy was matched by a country we aren't friendly with, it would indeed be considered extreme,) its not surprising that seeing a more rational face in politics seems a bit shocking. I guess my main point here is, you do this stuff behind closed doors. The quotes I see and hear, he is seriously "apologizing" for everything we do, and that's not right.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 20, 2009 -> 10:12 AM) Perhaps a little more fiber in the diet would help out. This is way too trivial to get worked up about. Are you s***ting me? If Obama just happens to catch them outside of the oval office... Awww hell, come on in! 'Cuse me while I take this call from my homeboy Chavez - hey Ozzie, you want to habla to my new friend? (and yes, this is completely a joke)

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 20, 2009 -> 01:52 PM) 1. What does waterboarding do? It helps set a precedent of what is acceptable to do. If we use what we would consider to be torture to our own soldiers on foreign prisoners, we have to be willing to accept it performed on our soldiers when captured in battle. When we view something of this nature as acceptable, we give cover to other states who torture equally or worse. As one of the leaders on this planet, we have an obligation to play better than the other, lesser players - because our behavior does help many other states stay in check. Not waterboarding KSM may not have an effect on Al-Qaeda, but it might on how the Chinese may treat us if we ever fight them, or on how another state might treat our soldiers when they get in harm's way. 2. What good does it do to release memos? Transparency is important for own peace of mind domestically. If all it does is confirm the suspicions of critics of our past actions, it takes steps to atone for the missteps that we have made and also to help lessen tensions - in a "turning over a new leaf" kind of sense. 3. What good does it do to differentiate administrations on foreign soil? A lot actually. Our path to combatting transglobal terrorism becomes easier when two things happen - some degree of goodwill is generated between other countries and us, and also when anger and hatred on the streets that foment terror is lessened. Hard to convert hearts and minds, when they are much more ambivalent on the US then they have been in recent years. It's not a total solution by any means towards ending terrorism as a serious threat, its an extremely complex situation that requires a number of avenues to fight it. What Obama has done in the last couple months abroad has the potential to be very good for the foreign relations of the US down the line, but only if its followed by the right steps afterwords. Will those happen? Frankly, nobody on this board knows for sure, but Obama seems to be heading in the direction of having a level headed foreign policy. Less anger tossed indiscriminately, more focus on the places that need it. In the end, I think Obama is a bigger hawk than anyone here gives him credit for - and frankly, I'd be surprised if there aren't US soldiers doing major operations in Northwest Pakistan before the next Presidential election. Re point #1 - the problem is, sir, NO ONE in the world will play by the rules but us, so what's the point? Do you think Mr. Chicomm gives a s*** about an American and his "rights" if we ever got into a war with them? GMAFB. And the world is full of roses. I guess that's my point. None of our enemies play by the rules. I'm not for 285 times or whatever it was, if that's really true. But if there are lives to be saved, then you have to do some things that you don't want to do as a government. I have a feeling that some of this stuff was cherry-picked to make it look like something else. If you're going to cherry pick s*** to release, release it all. Re point 2 and 3 - these people seize on this stuff as weakness, not strength. I'll get more into that later.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 20, 2009 -> 09:36 AM) I think it's feasible. Ugh - why?

Damn that's weird.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Apr 20, 2009 -> 09:18 AM) My daughter is having similar problems. Kids are just mean, its heartbreaking to see them go through stuff like this I dread having my kids deal with this type of stuff. It seems like kids are more viscious then they ever used to be, although bullying is pretty much a time honored tradition.

You think someone killed the horses on purpose? I doubt it. Although the weird part is the suddeness.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 20, 2009 -> 07:09 AM) Andrew Sullivan sums it up best wrt waterboarding: If this is true, then I agree. There's trying to get information, and then there's stupid.

That is just awesome. I seriously might order some.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 19, 2009 -> 11:08 PM) That's not really appeasement, it's just doing things differently. Functionally, what's the difference? Short of us bombing their facilities and/or going to war, Iran is going to do what it wants to do whether we talk to them or not. I could've said "every other president" but I used Bush's name on purpose. Bush wasn't wrong about everything, I mean some of this stuff is cookie-cutter and it doesn't matter if you have a Democrat or a Republican in office. IMO Bush's biggest mistakes on that front were unilateralism (this is OK when you have a very serious problem that needs to be addressed immediately, but when you have to hype something up and bulls*** everyone so they can believe it's justified, something is wrong), and thinking terrorism was an existential military threat that we could just bomb a lot and it'd go away. You are more level headed about this then most others, and I have also agreed with you on the last sentance of your post.

QUOTE (Felix @ Apr 19, 2009 -> 11:07 PM) I don't really agree with him that he's one of the top pitcher in the majors since he's the 3rd best pitcher on this staff, but it's hard to deny that Gavin has been pretty good. Hopefully that dreadful start against Detroit was an aberration. If he's the third best pitcher on this staff, we are going to have a damn good year. And I'm not diminishing anyone on the staff when I say this - I mean it in the way that says we have a tremendous 1-3 then. If Count and Colon can pitch well and win 25 games between them, then we are REALLY going to have a good year.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 19, 2009 -> 10:43 PM) Who is being appeased, exactly... he pretty much laid out the same demands/expectations of Iran that Bush did but in different language, he made a good faith gesture to Cuba and then said the ball was in their court along with a series of things the US wanted to see them do but it's basically the same list the US has had for decades. He hasn't backed down from the "war on terror," he just changed some words around and has a different strategy from Bush. He's still the American president, he's still pursuing American foreign policy objectives. He hasn't really "appeased" anyone except to use the carrot/stick approach which is more or less basic diplomacy. Allowing Iran to continue enrichment of uranium and wanting to talk to them is an act of appeasement, for example. GWB wanted enrichment to stop before talks. You have to give something to get something... we're not the ones in the wrong - oh wait, yes we are - by apologizing all over the globe... I find it interesting that you think Obama is doing the exact same thing GWB did from a foreign policy standpoint.

This is really an addendum to what I posted above, sort of. I guess my paralell here is, hello, Mr. Chamberlain. When you appease radicals, they cut your gonads off eventually. Now, you all will say that it is simply not true - but explain to me why.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 19, 2009 -> 02:23 PM) You know what I find remarkable? It's that every claim you make has been repeatedly debunked by multiple sources. But because you have it 100% set in your mind that the 24, beat people senseless technique always works, has no negative consequences, and is somehow far more effective than standard interrogation techniques, you keep repeating those claims no matter what. Abu Zubaydah gave up 3 things. The identities of Bin Al shibi, the identity of KSM, and something else I don't recall. He gave all that up under standard interrogation. The Bush administration was convinced he knew a lot more, so they made sure he confessed to knowing a lot more. At least 1 move to terror alert orange was based on the intel he gave up under torture. He also failed a polygraph when questioned again on that intel; he lied to get the torture to stop. He gave up everything that was true under normal interrogation, and gave up what the torturers wanted under torture. link Well, we'll go back to this... what's "torture"? And no one ever said that this guy got "beat senseless", your words, not mine. What are the negative consequences you speak of? That they recruit terrorists? Oh, wait, 3,000 people dead isn't enough - oh, now I'm "fear mongering"... and "we're supposed to be better then that". I've said it before, I'll say it again - Mr. Dickhead Zubaydah lost his "rights" when he wanted to kill more, and he beheaded Americans for the world to see. I'm supposed to cry about this guy getting waterboarded? Hell no. Let me take a different tact. What does waterboarding a handful of known leadership of terrorist networks do to our country? What good does it do to release memos about "supposed" questionaire techniques? What good does it do to go to foreign soil and say "I am Barack Hussein Obama and not Beorge W Bush"? What does our country do if attacked again? I'll start with these questions and try to be a good boy and debate the issues without Kaperbole ™.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 19, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) LINK Anyone who says this is "discomfort" is nuts (meaning, hell no it's not fun...) and frankly I am not sure any of these people have said that, but they have certainly gained information. Frankly, I do not believe for a single second the validity of this story. Any "official" can say what they want to make up a story. Furthermore, it's laughable that you all want to make it like they just did this for jollies. Riiiiiiight. But it's a damn good story and continues the hatred.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 18, 2009 -> 10:47 PM) Although when he talks about what he inherited, he does have a point about the deficit. It's really disingenuous for the GOP to be attacking him on it like it was his fault when they know full well it was their doing, and it took time for them to get it that way. Yes, sir... you've seen me say several times that GWB's legacy is getting Barack Obama elected. The issue is, we had to incur deficit spending - even Balta agrees with that. However, the deficit that Obama has now put us into - and projects out to be, makes GWB's deficit look like a drop of piss in the ocean. You have to find a way to reduce spending or gain revenue. But that would mean the Democrats would have to give up control (and I don't mean elections, I mean running everything for us)... which is obviously not going to happen until they get voted out of office. They are now doing what they have wanted to for the last 40 years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 18, 2009 -> 08:16 PM) Considering all the negatives, they damn well better be treated like that. Let's always look at the negatives before you do the positives... that way, we can be sure to get our collective ways...

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 18, 2009 -> 08:23 PM) We were wrong for invading Iraq because, "morality" or whatever aside, it was a breathtakingly and appallingly stupid decision that was badly mismanaged for the first 3 years to boot. If we were so dead-set on doing it the least we could've done was not half-assing it. I couldn't agree more. However, I don't want my current president going around talking how much better he is then the last one. You just don't do that. I don't ever, EVER remember that being done. It's always been a move on, here's what I want to do thing. I have heard more "I have inhereted XYZ" from this adminstration... and the selected releasing of documents when it's timed with speeches and advertisements in foreign countries... that's BS to me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 18, 2009 -> 07:51 PM) first of all, you said "cowtowing" to the rest of the world - as if to say we were capitulating to their desires, which are definitely not. And frankly, I don't mind his apologies at all - our leaders in the executive acting like drunken, selfish assholes in the way they acted towards their neighbors. So when Obama adds as part of his speeches that we, the US, have acted with some arrogance in recent years... he is right, and its good he says it. It does no harm to us, but it goes some way towards getting back to positive relationships. I certainly do. These are things that you do not write in speeches, you take care of business when you need to person to person. It's a weakness, it will be played as weakness, and will eventually cause us greater harm then good. If by acting in Iraq was of the highest arrogance, they can take that arrogance and shove it up their ass, simply because it's been proven the reason Europe didn't want to go in was the oil for food program, among other business transactions and really, even more then that... but whatever, we all know we were WRONG for it... As far as Mexico, allowing millions into our country is treating them with arrogance? Yea, we're arrogant muthafer's that must PUBLICLY "apologize" everywhere we go and take out newspaper ads YES cowtowing to whatever country he's in that day. No way, Jose. Not in my book.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 18, 2009 -> 05:02 PM) Thankfully, given that the price of oil has dropped by 66%, a 50% rise in energy costs would still be less than we were paying last year. No, TOTAL energy costs. Electricity, gasoline, heating (fuel oil and natural gas), and on and on. It has nothing to do with the price of oil. And, according to you, oil's so finite that there's no way it stays cheap - which frankly I see Obama trying to raise prices (see: tax) so that we are pushed into all this alternative energy, which just happens to cost more, which will in turn generate more carbon taxes. Nice vicious circle we're getting ready to create. Fossil fuels are now becoming our offical sin tax.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 18, 2009 -> 04:41 PM) You may have missed it, but it's very important. Yesterday, the EPA, following a ruling by the Supreme Court requiring it to do so...declared that Carbon Dioxide is an actual environmental pollutant that the EPA is required to regulate under the clean air act. There is additional legal procedure to get out of the way before anything happens, but the first step is likely going to be a decision on whether or not California can impose stricter emissions standards than the rest of the country this summer. The real meat of this move though is political...because it gives the Obama Administration immense leverage over the Congress regarding energy legislation. The Obama Administration can literally tell every senator and Congressperson out there that they had better produce a bill that the President can sign that creates a system regulating CO2 emissions...because if they don't do so, then the EPA is required by the current law to regulate them, and the EPA isn't going to be able to set up a cap and trade system on its own, so if the Congress doesn't pass a bill, the regulations will be vastly more onerous. No, no, it's not missed. This is the first step in raising our energy costs by at least 50% for every American. To be fair: something needs to be done, and we must be really careful about what actions are taken. The problem is, as you said, this is political, and they will do whatever they can to control energy - ...

The Kumbaya Tour Starring Barack Obama.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 10:31 PM) Wow. I just put together a bunch of data sets, where a very well known professor has produced one data set, and I've produced another, and every analysis that's been done before now agrees with mine and says he did something wrong. That's kinda Freaky. Uh oh, you're smarter then the Ph.D.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 09:42 PM) If this isn't a conflict of interest, I don't think there is such a thing as a conflict of interest any more. Just a little bit.