Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
Topic: US Presidential Election (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Andrew Hess
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9848
Posted: 13 September 2008 at 10:48pm | IP Logged | 1  

Just stumbled across this graph comparing McCain and Obama's tax ideas:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/0 9/ST2008060900950.html

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12843
Posted: 13 September 2008 at 11:31pm | IP Logged | 2  

"That's a crock of shit."

How so, Dave? How can you explain Bear Stearns? Lehman Brothers? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Who knows what other pillars of Wall Street will go under overnight? Is this good economic stewardship? The people who have lost jobs and houses, are they whiners to you?
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Dave Pruitt
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6184
Posted: 13 September 2008 at 11:38pm | IP Logged | 3  

Yeah, I don't know about that. McCain should just give everyone a 3 or 4% cut, and Obama, sticking it to those rich guys in the top 1% is good. They already pay 40% of all income tax, so why not jump them up to 50+. It's not like they'll counter the increase by charging more for their goods and services in all the businesses and corporations they own, outsourcing their business and good jobs to other countries to save money, and withholding investments, or freezing spending on improvements, expansion, infrastructure, etc. so they can absorb the higher taxes they'll be paying. Great idea.

Of course, that top 0.1%, the super rich, they're just like, the really fat cats, actors, and athletes and talk show hosts, and stuff, so screw them. They should pay through the nose. I applaud the ones that support Obama, like Oprah, and the like. That's really putting their money where their mouth is, and I mean that sincerely. I just hope they're not able to find ways to make even more money, to counter the increase, because someone will have to pay them too.

Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Dave Pruitt
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6184
Posted: 13 September 2008 at 11:45pm | IP Logged | 4  

Laying economic hardships at the feet of Presidents, or lifting them up on shoulders to cheer them during the windfalls never make sense to me. It's a ploy of detractors and supporters to promote their side, or bash the other side. Bush is no more responsible for the economy problems we're having right now than Herbert Hoover was for the Great Depression. I'll leave it to Michael Myers, or someone wiser in financial wizardy to explain the current wall street woes to you.

Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Bob Neill
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 December 2007
Posts: 877
Posted: 13 September 2008 at 11:53pm | IP Logged | 5  

Presidents (and sometimes Presidential candidates) always get absurd amounts of credit/blame for whatever happens.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Dave Pruitt
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6184
Posted: 13 September 2008 at 11:55pm | IP Logged | 6  

 Joe wrote:
The people who have lost jobs and houses, are they whiners to you?

Only if they whine and blame George Bush for it.

Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Gene Best
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4598
Posted: 13 September 2008 at 11:59pm | IP Logged | 7  

Some comic relief from The Onion:

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

Back to Top profile | search
 
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12843
Posted: 14 September 2008 at 12:09am | IP Logged | 8  

Through Alan Greenspan, GWB created the housing bubble which ended up as the sub-prime crisis. The incredibly low mortgage rates of a few years back was the direct effect of Greenspan keeping the Fed rate artificially low even when there was no inflation. And he did nothing to reign in sub-prime lending during that time.

Here's an 2005 article by an economist who criticized Greenspan for giving Bush whatever he wanted. 


Edited by Joe Zhang on 14 September 2008 at 12:11am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
Posted: 14 September 2008 at 12:32am | IP Logged | 9  

Oh for God's sake, doom, doom, doom. The sky is falling! That's a crock of shit. Hate Bush all you want, but he hasn't destroyed the economy, or America's international influence, or anything really, except the spirits of a bunch of democrats, and some whiners. We've gotten through a lot tougher times than this, and come out stronger for it. I really hope Obama wins so you guys can come up with some new material,

Please tell me you are joking Dave, because what you wrote is laughable. Dave you will only see what you want, no matter what anyone will counter back, even if I site 100 articles proving what you say is completely off base. From this point forward answering you would be a waste of time. I don't say this with malice, your mind is set and trying to debate with you would be a lesson in futility, and I am sure you feel that same way about me.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
Posted: 14 September 2008 at 12:43am | IP Logged | 10  

Gene funny article, I love The Onion, before I realized what they were I would be shocked at their headlines, because I thought they were a real paper.

Joe funny story about the Chuckie doll, I got for my oldest a "My Buddy" doll for his first birthday, each night I would put it in bed with Jonathan. When he was about two or three, thru the night I would check on him and I would find My Buddy on the floor, thinking Jonathan had been playing with him and he fell out of his crib. I would pick it up and tuck it back in bed with Jonathan. Thinking how sweet they looked side by side. This went on for about a year until I changed his room and put My Buddy on a shelf.

Well years later when Jonathan was 17 and going thru some of his old toys with me, we came across MY Buddy and I went "Awwwwww it's My Buddy!!"  Jonathan looked at me and goes, "Damn I hated that doll, it scared the shit out of me, because it would stare at me in the dark, I would throw it out of the bed and when I woke up it was back in bed with me."   We had a pretty good laugh.

My Buddy looked so much like Jonathan that's why I got it for him.

Sorry to go so far off topic, continue on......

 



Edited by Jodi Moisan on 14 September 2008 at 6:42am
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Rich Rice
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 April 2008
Posts: 195
Posted: 14 September 2008 at 4:05am | IP Logged | 11  

As Michael points out, U.S. involvement in the middle east has been a complicated, hands on affair that hardly puts us in a position of historical claims of being with 'clean hands.' Following the doctrine of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', the U.S. helped back the Taliban in their fight against Russia. We knew exactly their fundamentalist leanings and looked the other way because they were bleeding the Soviets dry.

There is no great Terrorist army. No network seeking to 'destroy' America. No organization that has weapons of mass destruction. The Taliban -with American support- were at war with Russia and Osama joined this fight as a 'call to arms' of fundamentalist muslims. When U.S. policy in the region ran against his twisted reasoning -HE- decided to take action against America. With the support and protection of the Taliban, Osama took advantage of the already in place man/money network used to funnel terrorist and terrorist action by Arabs against Israel.

9-11 required nothing more than 20+ operatives and a base camp network of perhaps 200 to 1,000 men. Their weapons were not of 'mass destruction' scale. They used nothing more than: box cutters, America's indifference, her false sense of being invulnerable and her lax security.

So indifferent in fact, President Bush was briefed in general of the facts to play out on 9-11, one month before the event. He read the documents. How terrorists were planning a major attack on the U.S. How the likely means of the attack may be crashing hijacked airplanes. How terrorists cells were probably already on American soil.

And he did.... nothing.

No 'yellow alert, green alert, blue alert.' No Thing. Just a 'keep me posted, thank you very much.' And while doing "nothing", he was in fact already hopeful for War against Iraq. "I'll tell you, he was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," Mickey Herskowitz told writer Russ Baker. "One of the things he said to me, is 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of (Kuwait) and he wasted it. He said, 'If I have a chance to invade Iraq, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.'

So this is the factual lay of the cards one month before 9-11. 9-11 happens and he swears on the solemn ground of the World Trade Center to get the people responsible. He did not swear to bring a shining example of democracy to the Middle East. He did not swear to place a U.S. presence on either side of Iran. -He swore to bring swift justice to the terrorist that attacked us. Or anyone that would harbor them. (Of course, Pakistan would prove that line a lie...)

Meanwhile, major steps were taken to close the barn door. The two weapons used against us were essentially nullified: No box cutters on air flight. No more false sense of invulnerability. Flights would have air marshals. Baby formula banned. People searched. -The greatest single weapon -planes and jet fuel- were stripped away as tool for any future terrorist attack. -Still, the fear raged on.

I won't go into the attempts to catch Bin Laden. What is interesting is that the war effectively began a year before it started.

"Blair promised George W Bush in April 2002 that Britain would back regime change.

A briefing paper for the ministers and officials at the meeting - this was in effect a British war cabinet - laid out two alternative US war plans. The first, a "generated start", involved a slow build-up of roughly 250,000 troops in Kuwait. Allied aircraft would then mount an air war, which would be followed by a full-scale invasion. The second option was a "running start", in which a continuous air campaign, "initiated by an Iraqi casus belli", would be mounted without any overt military build-up. Allied special forces giving support to Iraqi opposition groups on the ground would be joined by further troops as and when they arrived in theatre, until the regime collapsed. A few days after the meeting, the Americans opted for a hybrid of the two in which the air war would begin, as for a running start, as soon as the Iraqis provided the justification for war, while at the same time an invasion force would be built up, as for a generated start.

The record of the July meeting in London, however, contains a revealing passage in which Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, tells his colleagues in plain terms that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime". What is meant by "spikes of activity" becomes clear in the light of information elicited from the government by the Liberal Democrat Sir Menzies Campbell, who asked the Ministry of Defence about British and American air activity in 2002 in the southern no-fly zone of Iraq - the zone created to protect southern Shias after Saddam Hussein brutally suppressed their 1991 uprising against him.

The MoD response shows that in March 2002 no bombs were dropped, and in April only 0.3 tonnes of ordnance used. The figure rose to 7.3 tonnes in May, however, then to 10.4 in June, dipping to 9.5 in July before rising again to 14.1 in August. Suddenly, in other words, US and British air forces were in action over Iraq."

Meanwhile, intelligence was being gathered to justify sending ground troops, while the U.S. pretended a brave face of diplomacy with U.N. inspections about "weapons of mass destruction." The Downing memos point to the false witness of the U.N. actions, as it was made clear to the British war was coming regardless of what results came of inspections. And the intelligence itself??? Please, it was suspect from the start. Much of the intel  handed to congress came from the mouth of the man Bush had selected to succeed Saddam. He painted Saddam's weaponry in stark, grave terms. The guy was ultimately proven wrong on all counts, discredited and discarded when it became evident the powers in play after Saddam's removal wouldn't allow his ascendancy to happen. Meanwhile, the head of Iraq's Military gave contrary intel. He reported that chemical weapons had been destroyed. That sanctions had in fact crippled Saddam. It was the truth. But not what they wanted to hear, so guess which guy's statements went out to congress? The world?

Of course, no one would buy on the face of the argument that Iraq was a threat to the U. S. They had been routed in the first gulf war. The U.S. and our allies controlled their air space and waterways. So one needed that extra little 'umphhh' to make the case: "the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud." More bullshit because the day he uttered those words, he spoke -and inferred with certainty. When in fact intel did not give him cause to do so. And it had been decided by his handlers those words shouldn't be spoken. But they were.

All of which ignores the obvious. There is no moral ground to "get the terrorists before they commit terror." It would the equivalent of saying, "Tomorrow, we will kill the murderers in America before they murder." Imagine for a moment what a horrid world we would live in if by some conviction of 'good will', police -or the military- went out into society and started killing 'likely' killers.

Nor is there moral ground for the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive attacks. What is moral for one is moral for all. And if we have the right to attack when we perceive being threatened then there is no cause for criticizing Russia for action against Georgia. What is moral for the one is moral for all.

Bottom line, Iraq did nothing to America. We declared war on them. Bombed their infrastructure to hell and back. Dismantled their government. Disbanded their military. Imagine Chinese soldiers landing in Des Moines saying, "You. This is not your job anymore. This is Joe's job. Get out." What would you expect your average NRA gun totin', soccer mom lovin' grunt to do? Fight back perhaps???

Hell yeah.

And yet, in spite of human nature to put one's blood on the line in matters of power and privilege over one's life... in spite of the long held hostility between Shia and Sunni.... in spite of the well known hostility of Arabs to control from western peoples.... when the fighting kicks into full gear...THEY'RE ALL TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not 200. Not 1,000. But suddenly in the hundreds of thousands.

So here we sit 7 years later...

Bin Laden and his second in command have a new life making home movies.
We laud the 'success' of the surge... a calm, stable Iraq. We only had to kill between 100,000+ to achieve this unified tranquility. -All to displace a man who had the temerity to kill 3,000 to achieve the same.

And none of it paid for. Money borrowed from the Chinese. Money they are using to build their military into a major power.

Iran, hardly "surrounded" by America. We handed them Iraq on a silver platter. No nation in the middle east has benefited more from the U.S. invasion than Iran.

No political reconciliation in sight. In fact, all the players still have their guns. No love lost between Shia and Sunni. No resolution, but a stalemate at the cost of nearly 2 billion dollars a week, every week. With Sunni insurgents receiving welfare checks of 300 smackers a month just for playing nice.

All to 'succeed' with no definition of success. All for a victory that can't be defined. A royal fuck up backed by one idiot president and one loyal party, too much in love with the myth of John Wayne.

When one is dooped enough to buy into a mess of these proportions, it's no wonder Sarah Palin looks good. Up is down. In is out. Jodi, you haven't a prayer to change these people's minds. -As the immortal line from the movie Parting Glances goes, "Darling, you'd be amazed by what people can BLIND themselves to."










Back to Top profile | search
 
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
Posted: 14 September 2008 at 4:17am | IP Logged | 12  

 the U.S. helped back the Taliban in their fight against Russia

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Taliban didn't exist until after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance that fought with us against the Taliban were what was left of the Mujahideen who fought the Soviets.

Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
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

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login