Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local
-
I'm done playing devils advocate. I will explain the American political system instead.
Edited By: GSUDrunk Jan 5th, 2012 at 07:39 AM
In order to get elected to office in the U.S.A you have to lie. You have to pander to your base. Hell if you are Rick Santorum you change your beliefs on abortion on a day to day basis depending on how far right the group you are pandering to is. Obama said he was going to end the war in Iraq and Republicans say they are for small government. Both are liars and yet people just keep voting for the same lying fucks.
Rome is the mob and the mob is stupid.
Still drunk will be more eloquent tomorrow. -
IMO there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for the Americans to stay in Iraq other than the fact that they do believe that they will be going to war with Iran or at the very least the mere presense of the military in full force next door would keep the Iranians, "in line." If you look at the map on previous pages they do essentially have Iran surrounded and I think the new Iraqi government is in kahoots with the Iranian regime and they were under pressure by the Iranians to have the Americans leave. This would be a gigantic tactical win for the Iranians knowing that if there is going to be war that they will no longer be totally surrounded and if the Americans declare war they know that there is in fact no chance the Iraqis will allow American forces back in.
Saying that I do believe that it is almost imperative for Western interests that there is a concerted attack on Iran. It is extremely important for the entire world that these people do not get their hands on a nuclear weapon. If they do, you can bet your ass they will be holding the entire world hostage and if you think the economy is bad now, wait until this happens. The time to act is now! -
I don't want ignorant presidents either. He would have had to have been willfully ignorant to not know.
Originally Posted by EyeKnows
or he couldn't do what he promised and didn't know it at the time he "promised".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_ObamaObama held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans' Affairs through December 2006. In January 2007, he left the Environment and Public Works committee and took additional assignments with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He also became Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. He met with Mahmoud Abbas before Abbas became President of the Palestinian Authority, and gave a speech at the University of Nairobi condemning corruption within the Kenyan government.
-
I'm really disappointed with this. Do you honestly think that these credentials make him an expert on forecasting the end of a war? I mean whatever, I have no dreams of you leaving your black and white universe, but really! you cant conceed that politicans, CEO's, Bankers, Bakers, home owners, and presidents set goals and timelines basedon what they believe is possible and then stretch to meet those goals and reformulate if they are not met.
Originally Posted by Dyzalot
I don't want ignorant presidents either. He would have had to have been willfully ignorant to not know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Christ! you are they guy that always plays the skeptic, retreats to uncertainty, and claims insufficient evidence and NOW you are going to to call Obama willfully ignorant for making a forecast and not hitting it on the bullseye. I mean come on, what a crock of BS.
If you want to say he shouldn't have forecasted because he didn't have enough info, i'd support that. If you wanted to say, forecasts for war mean fuck all, i'd agree with that. If you wanted to say that his forecast was driven by a need to satiate the electorate then again we would find ourselves in agreement. but willfully ignorant!!! I seriously doubt it, after all what facts for ending this conflict would really relevant. People have boatloads more data about other less complicated events and they still can't predict to your required level of precision. -
question - if you are president and have specific ideas in mind (and possibly even made promises based on those ideas), do you just veto every single thing that comes across your desk if it does not 100% meet with your ideals, or do you accept the fact that you need to compromise to get certain things through?
Thinking in terms of RP, i don't know how he could possibly be effective as a president based on his ideals. Nothing would ever get done. Or am i wrong? -
When Ron Paul is asked how he would end the wars he says "We marched right in we can march right out." Do you think he is lying or wouldn't go through with such a promise?
Originally Posted by rayspizza
I'm really disappointed with this. Do you honestly think that these credentials make him an expert on forecasting the end of a war? I mean whatever, I have no dreams of you leaving your black and white universe, but really! you cant conceed that politicans, CEO's, Bankers, Bakers, home owners, and presidents set goals and timelines basedon what they believe is possible and then stretch to meet those goals and reformulate if they are not met.
Christ! you are they guy that always plays the skeptic, retreats to uncertainty, and claims insufficient evidence and NOW you are going to to call Obama willfully ignorant for making a forecast and not hitting it on the bullseye. I mean come on, what a crock of BS.
If you want to say he shouldn't have forecasted because he didn't have enough info, i'd support that. If you wanted to say, forecasts for war mean fuck all, i'd agree with that. If you wanted to say that his forecast was driven by a need to satiate the electorate then again we would find ourselves in agreement. but willfully ignorant!!! I seriously doubt it, after all what facts for ending this conflict would really relevant. People have boatloads more data about other less complicated events and they still can't predict to your required level of precision.
"Nothing being done" would be progress...Originally Posted by saxman
question - if you are president and have specific ideas in mind (and possibly even made promises based on those ideas), do you just veto every single thing that comes across your desk if it does not 100% meet with your ideals, or do you accept the fact that you need to compromise to get certain things through?
Thinking in terms of RP, i don't know how he could possibly be effective as a president based on his ideals. Nothing would ever get done. Or am i wrong? -
Originally Posted by Passiveplay
Obama: I'm going to pull the troops out in 16 months!
Dems: yay go Obama, why didn't Bush set a time line?
Rep: that is dangerous you can't drawn down that fast we will loose all we fought for
36 months later the troops comeback after a gradual draw down, which was what the republicans wanted. Oh and it happened to be the day that Bush had negotiated.
Dems: well thats fine at least he got them out, who cares about timelines anyway.
Repubs: what an outrage Obama waited 36 months, that liar! Think of the lives lost!
Wait what are we talking about?
dems and repubs are one in the same, when you realize they are not in an adversarial position you can look at it much more clearly.
-
based on this, if RP was ever elected based on his promises to eliminate the fed, return the USA to the gold standard, eliminate FEMA, remove all troops from foreign soil, etc, would he be a liar if he did not succeed in achieving those promises during his term?
-
He can eliminate FEMA (effectively) and remove all troops from foreign soil without congressional approval. He can also end the drug war and stop enforcing the Patriot Act. There are quite a few things he can do as head of the executive that would further his goals. Doubt many of his supporters truly think he can end the Fed or get us back on the gold standard without congress going along with it which would be tough without a flood of new "tea party" types in the legislature to help him. But he can veto every unbalanced budget, every bill that reduces freedom, etc.
Originally Posted by saxman
based on this, if RP was ever elected based on his promises to eliminate the fed, return the USA to the gold standard, eliminate FEMA, remove all troops from foreign soil, etc, would he be a liar if he did not succeed in achieving those promises during his term?
-
fair enough - i wasn't sure how much he could actually do on his own
-
kind of a moot point, but I think it would be awesome/hilarious to see Ron Paul just veto the shit out of every bill for 4 years. you know he wouldn't care about reelection (not that he wouldn't want to get reelected, just that he wouldn't do anything different to ensure it), and any of the tactics used by congress wouldn't work on him. would be beautiful.
Originally Posted by Dyzalot
He can eliminate FEMA (effectively) and remove all troops from foreign soil without congressional approval. He can also end the drug war and stop enforcing the Patriot Act. There are quite a few things he can do as head of the executive that would further his goals. Doubt many of his supporters truly think he can end the Fed or get us back on the gold standard without congress going along with it which would be tough without a flood of new "tea party" types in the legislature to help him. But he can veto every unbalanced budget, every bill that reduces freedom, etc.
-
The price of food and gas is why the economy is so bad. People can't afford anything because their is no money left after paying bills, filling the gas tank up, and feeding the family.
Edited By: whitechoclate Jan 11th, 2012 at 02:38 AM -
All I know is that me and my wife make over 100 k a year combined and we are struggling to make it.
-
Edited By: phish42O Jan 11th, 2012 at 03:21 AMOriginally Posted by whitechoclate
All I know is that me and my wife make over 100 k a year combined and we are struggling to make it.
you obv don't have student loan debt or a mortgage.
enjoy 10 cent beers in asia (obv, jelly - i read your shit with envy. props to ya for living life on your terms). but for those of us with school loans and jobs. 100k is gon fast.
for instance - i spend 6 dollars a day in tolls to go to fucking work. how fucking retarded is that?
my day starts with someone leeching off my ass. -
He is just wants acknowledgement for living on $0.5/day in china
Originally Posted by whitechoclate
Mortgage,student loans, car notes, bills, gas, groceries, and 4 children equals broke.
I don't think it is a promise. I think he is referring to his ideal as a president. It gives me insight into how I can expect him to govern, but it doesn't tell me what will happen or what he will do when faced with new info or different circumstance. -
Someone plz tell me y this thread was bumped after 5 days
-
Really?
-
An interesting article on why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Basically it talks about the US sanctions imposed on Japan.
Originally Posted by Geoff Moore
I don't blame Iran. If China wanted to impose sanctions on us we would fuck shit up too.
http://www.pearlharbor.org/history-of-pearl-harbor.asp
I don't know, can we let Iran have nukes? If they obtain them their influence in the Middle East would grow exponentially and they would become a much more disruptive force than they are now. I hate oil.











