Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: September 05 2013 at 01:46
Atavachron wrote:
^ Of course it is, it's just when Bush Jr. or Reagan did it I decided they were reckless warmongers. When Clinton or Obama do it I decide they're using prudent force against a despotic regime. What's that all about?
The major spin difference between them is that Bush Jr., Bush Snr. and Reagan engaged in conflicts intended to directly remove an incumbent regime that America didn't like (Panama, Grenada, Iraq) whereas Clinton and Obama engaged in conflicts intended to indirectly remove an incumbent regime that America didn't like (Somalia, Yugoslavia, Lybia). And that is a politically demarcated distinction not only in interpretation but in intent - the goals are the same, the political spin used to justify and carry-out the action is different.
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
That may be the purported intent of the strikes, but the effect will be what I described above. Especially in terms of blowback, the selective US punishment of chemical actions in the eyes of the area must be considered.
Absolutely.
King of Loss wrote:
Let's just have a global world war sometime, ok?
6/10 for word-recognition, 0/10 for comprehension, /10 for use of emoticon.
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65550
Posted: September 05 2013 at 03:50
Dean wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
^ Of course it is, it's just when Bush Jr. or Reagan did it I decided they were reckless warmongers. When Clinton or Obama do it I decide they're using prudent force against a despotic regime. What's that all about?
The major spin difference between them is that Bush Jr., Bush Snr. and Reagan engaged in conflicts intended to directly remove an incumbent regime that America didn't like (Panama, Grenada, Iraq) whereas Clinton and Obama engaged in conflicts intended to indirectly remove an incumbent regime that America didn't like (Somalia, Yugoslavia, Lybia). And that is a politically demarcated distinction not only in interpretation but in intent - the goals are the same, the political spin used to justify and carry-out the action is different.
Maybe, but that's not what it is. I think it's that I believe Obama's judgment is superior to Bush's, so I assume his decisions are better, whether that's always true or not.
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: September 05 2013 at 04:09
^ Somewhat agreed.
I do not like Obama as a president, especially
because he had such a vision as a candidate and he's just been
wallowing in pragmatism for 5 years in his presidency now. And I suppose
I'd take level headed pragmatism over whatever Bush was, but still, you
get the feeling that we'll never get a visionary willing to stick with
it anymore. There are serious problems in Washington: budgetary,
espionage, war. And at least I thought when I voted for him (twice) that
Obama would at least try to be a liberal. Now he's really just doing
what he can to maintain the status quo, and please everybody. He tries
to say all the right words, but in the end he really stands for nothing.
Pragmatism
can be good, but you can tell our nation is straining very hard under
conflicting ideals and where we need to go in the next century. We need
leaders who can trailblaze and not just wallow in reactionary politics.
That does involve reigning in our defense expenditure so we can focus of
expeditions in technology and science so we can actually be #1 in
something again besides amount spend on bombs and cruise missiles.
Obama the candidate was perfect for this. Obama the president is a pansy.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: September 05 2013 at 04:45
I think there is a huge difference between candidate as politician and politician as civil servant. The responsibility of office tends to take precident over any idealism - how well a candidate manages that transition and the balance between civil service and legislature is the measure of a leader.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: September 05 2013 at 06:49
stonebeard wrote:
^ Somewhat agreed.
I do not like Obama as a president, especially
because he had such a vision as a candidate and he's just been
wallowing in pragmatism for 5 years in his presidency now. And I suppose
I'd take level headed pragmatism over whatever Bush was, but still, you
get the feeling that we'll never get a visionary willing to stick with
it anymore. There are serious problems in Washington: budgetary,
espionage, war. And at least I thought when I voted for him (twice) that
Obama would at least try to be a liberal. Now he's really just doing
what he can to maintain the status quo, and please everybody. He tries
to say all the right words, but in the end he really stands for nothing.
Pragmatism
can be good, but you can tell our nation is straining very hard under
conflicting ideals and where we need to go in the next century. We need
leaders who can trailblaze and not just wallow in reactionary politics.
That does involve reigning in our defense expenditure so we can focus of
expeditions in technology and science so we can actually be #1 in
something again besides amount spend on bombs and cruise missiles.
Obama the candidate was perfect for this. Obama the president is a pansy.
The issue is that candidates don't exist. You only see a meticulously planned, everywhere controlled, facsimile of a human being. It's as much to say the president from Independence Day is what the country needs.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Pat makes a good point. Many, myself being one, were a little....let down (to be VERY polite) by President Obama over candidate obama, but he is right this often happens. I didn't go on the whole "omg obama will cure AIDS, global warming and all poverty!!" but I did expect a decently progressive leader.
Hell, George Wubya was the "compassionate conservative" and dont use our army for nation building and etc
One can argue there was an outside force (9/11) but very obviously the whole Wubya turned neo con (even though most of them never were historically)
It's well known in political science (what the hell else do we do with our degrees?) that politicians "run to the fringe" to please the party, then "run to the center" to please the populace/govern.
There's of course other outside factors, like the healthcare bill I blamed Obama for not pushing harder/wanting to work the GOP that obviously wouldn't waver but then later realized a few important politicians with major health industry in their pockets basically killed the original bill. He could've pushed still, but IDK what's a leader to do? When the system itself is so corrupt...
Said it before, say it again: researching more into the post keynesian mindset actually brings a bit more vailidity to the core of austrian theory IMO
He speaks of Hyman Minsky who, while de regulation and markets were partially to blame, also speaks of the "big government" (Treasury and Fed) "intervening in every crisis" which meant "lessons were never learned" and how "stability is destabilizing" a la Greenspan finally beating the business cycle just led to a massive orgy of spending, confidence and irrational behavior. Without saying it, this implies Austrian theory is at least correct in it's foundation, that too much meddling can have disaterous results.
Shame they then advocate fairly radical ideas like slashing most to all welfare, government itself and etc
If there was a semi Austrian economist who was willing to moderate it could bring more life to the core, and most vital aspect, of the theory. Though sadly even the word "Austrian" leads to a barrage of fairly hateful attacks, so they've doomed themselves it appears
Said it before, say it again: researching more into the post keynesian mindset actually brings a bit more vailidity to the core of austrian theory IMO
He speaks of Hyman Minsky who, while de regulation and markets were partially to blame, also speaks of the "big government" (Treasury and Fed) "intervening in every crisis" which meant "lessons were never learned" and how "stability is destabilizing" a la Greenspan finally beating the business cycle just led to a massive orgy of spending, confidence and irrational behavior. Without saying it, this implies Austrian theory is at least correct in it's foundation, that too much meddling can have disaterous results.
Shame they then advocate fairly radical ideas like slashing most to all welfare, government itself and etc
If there was a semi Austrian economist who was willing to moderate it could bring more life to the core, and most vital aspect, of the theory. Though sadly even the word "Austrian" leads to a barrage of fairly hateful attacks, so they've doomed themselves it appears
I hope you see the contradiction between your first and second paragraphs.
I can only assume it's the classic: We can't criticize "free markets" based off the not free markets we currently have.
Understood, and I get that which is why I like the idea of the Job Guarantee do NOT tinker with the markets. Leave them be, and catch whoever falls out of it with a true safety net. Plus all the other stuff I've talked about it before, but yeah you know I never got why the CB part of the theory HAD to be hand in hand with reducing all gov welfare, I saw them as seperate.
And I also know moderation is not how this camp usually operates but well, guess I never was totally libertarian
BTW I love yall so much Im here, even though Im currently on vacation in California! ...And my white self can't take any more sun for the time being
Speaking of which...when I was in Berkeley a few days ago, a hobo was pushing "wonderful Obama magnets" and two (liberal cliche CA looking) women walking in front of me scoffed, saying "Like I'd want one of those" and "war monger" and there were the hippie protests in SF. So some people at least aren't giving Bama a total free pass.
I know there can be differences in every conflict but just boggles my mind, its always "anti christ" to the GOP and not even a thought given, but total support, to Dems. I mean at least contemplate before making a decision. But nope, just blindly say "well Bama is doing this one so its fine I guess, bomb syria!"
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: September 06 2013 at 12:51
Epignosis wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Obama the candidate was perfect for this. Obama the president is a pansy.
You had four years of the latter.
Obama's first term was dominated by the health care bill, which is definitely a mess, but there's less there for a liberal to find issue with than the mess his second term is looking like. And there was Libya, which, right or wrong, did not turn into another Iraq. Now we have the NSA and whistleblowing, both of which are affronts to any liberal-minded person out there. And, in the end, I'd still rather have Obama than Romney, which is what it comes down to.
Now that I remember, I voted for Barr in 2008.
Not saying I'm happy with my decision to vote for Obama in 2012, but I know he has potential to be a good president. He's just...not.
Bush on the other hand, could have never been a good president.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.625 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
"Freedom" thread or something
Topic Options
Atavachron wrote:
/10 for use of emoticon.
) that politicians "run to the fringe" to please the party, then "run to the center" to please the populace/govern. 
do NOT tinker with the markets. Leave them be, and catch whoever falls out of it with a true safety net. Plus all the other stuff I've talked about it before, but yeah you know I never got why the CB part of the theory HAD to be hand in hand with reducing all gov welfare, I saw them as seperate. 
