Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Well, yeah, anyone who assumes the President has unlimited power to deliver on his campaign promises in defiance of Congressional opposition is being unreasonable.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And he tried to deliver on that promise but all these legal issues (and fearmongers in Congress who managed to get the public to believe that maximum security prisons couldn't hold these guys) were simply too much. He inherited a mess with no good solution.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.I can agree with that. I never expected Obama (nor will I ever expect anyone) to be a savior or anything, and anyone who did is delusional.
I'm just saying that "people just didn't want Guantanamo to go away hard enough!" isn't one of the reasons it still stands today. That was my main point of contention with the article.
edited 30th Jan '13 8:48:43 AM by HilarityEnsues
Local voters strongly opposed the transfer of any detainees to their particular jurisdictions. It's one thing to agree on the broad principle and quite another to face the idea of having a SCARY TERRORIST sent to a jail near your home.
The moral failings of our government are our own fault, by direct consequence. Our government is us.
edited 30th Jan '13 8:50:58 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That reminds me of George Carlin's bit on NIMBY, where he's talking about prisons. People always want more prisons, they just don't want them nearby. Are they afraid of the prisoners? They're all locked up. And if some do break out, it's not like they're going to hang around; they're running as far away as they can get!
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.I'll offer that escaped prisoners do tend to commit crimes in or around the communities they escape into, but I'm not sure that's relevant. The point is that NIMBY is the major reason why we can't transfer the Gitmo detainees to the U.S.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I think it's more related to the fact that both parties tend to agree on issues related to national security. There are factions within each that have dissenting views, but they are definitely a minority.
One could make the argument that much more should've been done outside of the voting booth, though, which is fair enough.
In what may be the most hilarious scare tactic yet, Fox News now accusing Obama of an evil scheme to delegitimitize a news organization
The organization being Fox News.
Yeah...Fox doesn't need any help in delegitimizing themselves. They were barred from creating a Canadian network because they made it clear they wouldn't bother reporting on Canadian news. It's not because they barely do any research and employ pundits who suggest tactics that would damage the economy, it's because the President doesn't like them.
Also, "Oh, no! What will happen to all our loyal viewers if we can't tell them what to think?"
They'll change the channel and either not watch news at all or watch a different news station and find out about (gasp) a different point of view!
edited 30th Jan '13 1:43:29 PM by Zendervai
I'm sorry, I'm having a bit of a hard time understand why I should be listening to this person. She has athored a grand total of 4 articles on Fox News in the past year. I see the evidence that she is talking about, but they are little one or two line comments over the course of years in response to attacks on the Presedent (or his policies) from Fox in the first place.
Not to mention that you are probably not being let into Benghazi conference calls because you keep talking about Benghazi and don't spend time on other, more imedeate issues.
Oh, and her previous story is about him being "chauvinistic" in defending Susan Rice and not leting her handle it on her own.
If this author considers herself "liberal", I am glad I don't generally touch Fox News even "with a 39.5' poll".
edited 30th Jan '13 1:36:08 PM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!Oh, that is hilarious. Fox News, delegitimized and ignored by the President that they have gone on record as calling the "worst in history". You know what, I do yearn for the day when they no longer bother to call themselves a news organization, but openly identify themselves as a propaganda network.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Eh, freedom of speech applies. They can talk, but nobody has to listen.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
It's the way Bush hadn't quite managed to reform Social Security by the time he had left office. The whole thing about where Social Security would be privatized (as in, you would be able to move your cash to an account you actually own, which means it could be passed on to your heirs, etc. etc.), but groups like the AARP was against privatizing, and insisted on a plan that continued to support the generation of seniors that were retiring (Baby Boomers, in particular).
Without raising taxes, the only way to solve Social Security's growing debt was to reduce the benefits to younger workers, as the Baby Boomer generation was reaching retirement age (which meant a lot more responsibility on Medicare, etc.). It's all shuffling money around.
With so much money being moved to the War, it was construed by some to be stealing from Social Security to fund it, even though the projected cost of the Medicare program is nearly half a trillion by 2015.
edited 30th Jan '13 3:57:10 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!The costs of an American welfare state will decrease with time - put it this way: The USA spends a larger percentage of its GDP on healthcare than any other First World nation
◊. For all the Republicans peek through horrified fingers at Britain's NHS, the USA spends almost twice as much on a system that isn't as comprehensive. I personally put this down to healthcare getting cheaper the more comprehensive it is, and simple experience running a welfare state. Of course, the US position does present unique challenges of mobility, and Americans are proportionally very unhealthy (though not much worse than me Old Country, Scotland), but I reckon once the USA has been running a welfare system for a longer time costs will desrease.
edited 30th Jan '13 4:02:03 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiThere are several factors involved in that. First, a lot of our coverage options, including Medicare, don't take advantage of the ability to negotiate reduced prices with health care providers. Second, we do have a very unhealthy populace, largely because of resistance to programs designed to encourage healthy lifestyles and massive lobbying by the food industry. As a sub-element of this, lack of insurance causes many people to not seek healthcare until they are seriously ill, inflating costs. Third, malpractice insurance is a massive cost for providers. Fourth, medical education is enormously expensive.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I know, I mentioned them in my post, in passing.
And all of those things could be solved by either having an entirely private system or a comprehensive state-backed public one. And there are objective reasons to prefer the state-backed model. Don't get me wrong, I love America and its way of doing things (99% of the time), but there are a couple of areas where the Old Country outshines it (like beer
). Its the same principle as lending - if you owe the bank $100,000, the bank owns you, if you owe the bank $10,000,000, you own the bank - similarly, say to pharmaceutical companies, "we will sign a five year contract to supply your medicines to 60% of America's hospitals", they'll fall over themselves to try to get that deal - discounts, economies of scale, hell, they'll break their knees to get that contract!
edited 30th Jan '13 4:23:18 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiMassachusetts Governor Patrick names William 'Mo' Cowan as interim senator to take Kerry's seat
Sorry to those hoping for Barney Frank.
Senator Alexander (R-TN) says video games are bigger problem than guns
Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) touts NTSB chief Hersman to replace LaHood as Secretary of Transportation
Joe Biden: Why the GOP's wrong about Hagel
edited 30th Jan '13 5:41:31 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016I'm a bit surprised this didn't get mentioned yet. A fifteen year old girl who performed at Obama's inauguration was shot dead today in an apparently random attack at a Chicago bus stop.
The news would be ironic if it were not also so tragic. In before the, "It's Too Soon to talk about gun violence," comments.
edited 30th Jan '13 5:38:02 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Probably because it's not big news, except that it's coincidental that involves someone who happened to be at the President's inauguration. There's been many people who've been shot in the last week, but you don't hear about them.
Gun Control Debate heats up
as both sides say the other side "misses the point" concerning background checks.
In before "We must do something!" and "Think of the Children!" in the same manner as "It's Too Soon!"
edited 30th Jan '13 5:45:55 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!

This isn't about moral outrage for me; I'm not exactly bemoaning the fate of some terrorists any more than anyone else. This is a question of principles, specifically what the government rightfully has in it's power to do. That's why I'm against the death penalty, too. Not because I think criminals who are heinous enough to face such a charge are deserving of sympathy, but because I think it's a grievous abuse of State power.
The point is, this guy is trying to blame the people for Gitmo remaining open, even though they voted for someone who said they'd close it. Whatever you think we should do about this now, that is a completely unreasonable position to take. Obama is a fallible human being who promised something he couldn't deliver on. End of story.