# Obama-nation



## Balfour

About sums it up:






Discuss?


----------



## Balfour




----------



## Tempest

The first song features the common defect of listing things they hate that Obama is doing that they never said a peep about when Republicans did the same thing.

The second video has some issue with Russia, which is absurd as they are becoming the model nation while the US spirals downward.

Otherwise, I have no disagreement.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> About sums it up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discuss?


Discuss what? The phenomenon that the right in the US don't like Obama? Quelle surprise!


----------



## SG_67

^ The right doesn't agree with the left. It has nothing to do with Obama personally.


----------



## eagle2250

No surprise here...
just agreement in general with the sentiments expressed by the artists! Frankly, Obama is just a more polished version of Bernie Sanders! We were dumb enough to elect him...perhaps we deserve to suffer the consequences! As the Good Book tells us, we will reap what we sow!"


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> No surprise here...
> just agreement in general with the sentiments expressed by the artists!_* Frankly, Obama is just a more polished version of Bernie Sanders!*_ We were dumb enough to elect him...perhaps we deserve to suffer the consequences! As the Good Book tells us, we will reap what we sow!"


You say that as if it is a bad thing.... From what I've read of Bernie Sanders he appears to be quite reasonable in his views, for an American politician. No doubt the right will condemn him as a communist.....


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> ^ The right doesn't agree with the left. It has nothing to do with Obama personally.


The right and left don't agree personally, but their policies have little difference beyond superficial social issues. Well, I could correct that to say Democrat and Republican, as the GOP is barely right anymore.


----------



## eagle2250

IMHO it is a bad thing. I'm all for a social safety net, but the cradle to grave giveaway programs championed by the "Obamamanians" are ridiculous, crushing out any vestiges of personal initiative and hard work to get ahead in this once(!) great nation of ours! I am ashamed of many of the words and actions of my President.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> ^ The right doesn't agree with the left. It has nothing to do with Obama personally.


That might be true in your case, but I am 100% convinced that much of the opposition to Obama is about race, just as some of the opposition to Hillary historically has been about her gender. Some people feel threatened by the way the country is evolving, with demographics having much to do with the problem (in their eyes), and Obama to them is illegitimate.


----------



## tocqueville

eagle2250 said:


> IMHO it is a bad thing. I'm all for a social safety net, but the cradle to grave giveaway programs championed by the "Obamamanians" are ridiculous, crushing out any vestiges of personal initiative and hard work to get ahead in this once(!) great nation of ours! I am ashamed of many of the words and actions of my President.


You overstate the case greatly.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> You say that as if it is a bad thing.... From what I've read of Bernie Sanders he appears to be quite reasonable in his views, for an American politician. No doubt the right will condemn him as a communist.....


Chouan, for once we might be on the same side of a debate. Sanders is well to the right of someone like Corbyn. I see him as no threat to anyone, although I would vote against him because I can't imagine how he could possibly accomplish anything given Congress's opposition to Obama's far more moderate agenda. So what's the point? He's better suited to the role he has, which is in the Senate, where he can do some good.


----------



## Balfour

Virtually anyone is to the right of Corbyn, who is more objectionable than Michael Foot (who was honourable if misguided). How can one expect leadership on the ISIL threat from a man who has built his political career by being a mouthpiece and apologist for terror. The only man Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with is Gerry Adams at the height of the IRA's mainland UK bombing campaign of soft civilian targets.


----------



## eagle2250

tocqueville said:


> You overstate the case greatly.


I sincerely wish I could agree with you on your assessment of my stated perspective, but at this point, I cannot!


----------



## tocqueville

Balfour said:


> Virtually anyone is to the right of Corbyn, who is more objectionable than Michael Foot (who was honourable if misguided). How can one expect leadership on the ISIL threat from a man who has built his political career by being a mouthpiece and apologist for terror. The only man Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with is Gerry Adams at the height of the IRA's mainland UK bombing campaign of soft civilian targets.


I generally agree with you, although--and perhaps I should save it for the other thread on the Parliament vote going on now--Corbyn's skepticism regarding participating in the anti-ISIS campaign is warranted, and I sympathize with Brits who feel stung by Blair/Bush and regret Blair's eagerness to follow the US lead.

Back to the topic, condemnation of Obama is greatly out of proportion with the reality of his governance, which by and large has been marked by moderation and prudence. Where he fails is in his unwillingness to be the kind of rah-rah cheer leader that Bush was. People miss that, notwithstanding the substance of the President's policies, which too many people ignore at any rate. At worse, one can accuse Obama of being too conservative with regard to foreign affairs, but I greatly prefer his caution to W.'s imprudence and the neo-cons' fascist fascination with decisiveness and bold action for their own sake.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> I generally agree with you, although--and perhaps I should save it for the other thread on the Parliament vote going on now--Corbyn's skepticism regarding participating in the anti-ISIS campaign is warranted, and I sympathize with Brits who feel stung by Blair/Bush and regret Blair's eagerness to follow the US lead.
> 
> Back to the topic, condemnation of Obama is greatly out of proportion with the reality of his governance, which by and large has been marked by moderation and prudence. Where he fails is in his unwillingness to be the kind of rah-rah cheer leader that Bush was. People miss that, notwithstanding the substance of the President's policies, which too many people ignore at any rate. At worse, one can accuse Obama of being too conservative with regard to foreign affairs, but I greatly prefer his caution to W.'s imprudence and the neo-cons' fascist fascination with decisiveness and bold action for their own sake.


Similarly, although I sometimes disagree with your views, you often express them well, and I think that your writing here has been excellent.


----------



## tocqueville

I read this once and found it rather on the mark re: Obama.

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/war-nerd-obamas-wars/

The eponymous author is one of my favorite columnists; I recommend googling. He's very tongue-in-cheek, but there's often more than a little truth in what he says, so while he's above all interested in being entertaining, he can also be rather informative.


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> I generally agree with you, although--and perhaps I should save it for the other thread on the Parliament vote going on now--Corbyn's skepticism regarding participating in the anti-ISIS campaign is warranted, and I sympathize with Brits who feel stung by Blair/Bush and regret Blair's eagerness to follow the US lead.
> 
> Back to the topic, condemnation of Obama is greatly out of proportion with the reality of his governance, which by and large has been marked by moderation and prudence. Where he fails is in his unwillingness to be the kind of rah-rah cheer leader that Bush was. People miss that, notwithstanding the substance of the President's policies, which too many people ignore at any rate. At worse, one can accuse Obama of being too conservative with regard to foreign affairs, but I greatly prefer his caution to W.'s imprudence and the neo-cons' fascist fascination with decisiveness and bold action for their own sake.


ISIL poses an existential threat. They want a global caliphate. You can't be Chamberlain in response to that. Bush and the neocons got that even though they made clear tactical mistakes. We will miss Bush and Cheney when Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

And likewise I write from the perspective of someone who respects your views even when I respectfully disagree.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Virtually anyone is to the right of Corbyn, who is more objectionable than Michael Foot (who was honourable if misguided). How can one expect leadership on the ISIL threat from a man who has built his political career by being a mouthpiece and apologist for terror.


You think so? Any evidence for that? Apart from the deliberate misinformation in the populist news media, of course.



Balfour said:


> The only man Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with is Gerry Adams at the height of the IRA's mainland UK bombing campaign of soft civilian targets.


 As has already been written here, "you overstate your case". As has been said elsewhere, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"; during the height of the IRA's bombing campaign, where were the PIRA getting their armalites, ammunition, funding and explosives from? An organisation called Noraid was one of the main supporters of "the struggle" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID Perhaps you should look at some American politicians as well. Condemning a British politician for having sympathy for Irish Republicanism is a bit hypocritical, given US support for the IRA, don't you think? https://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2...d-make-us-real-ira-supporters-stop-and-think/


----------



## Tempest

Balfour said:


> ISIL poses an existential threat.


Can't we just give them an Islamic State, the way that the Jewish state of Israel was created???


tocqueville said:


> Where he fails is in his unwillingness to be the kind of rah-rah cheer leader that Bush was.


I actually wish his statements on domestic affairs were as carefully considered and diplomatic as his international ones. He blows my mind with some of the stupid things he says about race and all. I quickly got used to Bush making obtuse statements, but Barry seems to be personally trolling me sometimes.


----------



## tocqueville

Balfour said:


> ISIL poses an existential threat. They want a global caliphate. You can't be Chamberlain in response to that. Bush and the neocons got that even though they made clear tactical mistakes. We will miss Bush and Cheney when Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
> 
> And likewise I write from the perspective of someone who respects your views even when I respectfully disagree.


I don't disagree regarding the threat represented by ISIL and Iran, the question is what to do about it. Most serious defense analysts agree that any large ground deployment would be seriously problematic for a number of reasons. Bombing, they also agree, is unlikely to do much. So it seems that the best option--or perhaps I should say the least bad option--is a slow, careful effort to weaken and bleed the beast through a combination of measures, including bombing and small scale ground efforts of precisely the sort that the US is doing already. I expect Obama to step up that stuff, incrementally, and I expect Hollande to be getting into that game if France isn't already. And if I were them, I'd be leaning on Cameron to do so as well. We're not talking armored brigades, just small scale SAS kinds of things. In any case, what they do would not yield results any time soon, which undoubtedly will not satisfy the parts of the public eager for decisive action.


----------



## Brio1

tocqueville said:


> That might be true in your case, but I am 100% convinced that much of the opposition to Obama is about race, just as some of the opposition to Hillary historically has been about her gender. Some people feel threatened by the way the country is evolving, with demographics having much to do with the problem (in their eyes), and Obama to them is illegitimate.


My opposition to Ms. Clinton is the same to that of her hubby, viz. , a lack of principles. Welcome to the age of the neoliberal.

I recommend that you peruse Christopher Hitchens book on the matter :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_One_Left_to_Lie_To


----------



## tocqueville

Brio1 said:


> My opposition to Ms. Clinton is the same to that of her hubby, viz. , a lack of principles. Welcome to the age of the neoliberal.
> 
> I recommend that you peruse Christopher Hitchens book on the matter :
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_One_Left_to_Lie_To


There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose Ms. Clinton (I"ll vote for her reluctantly next November), but I believe that the level of antipathy for her historically is out of proportion, making her, like Obama, hated more intensely than would otherwise be the case if she were a he, or if Obama were white. My father insists that the vitriol against her reminds him of the hatred heaped upon Eleanor Roosevelt.


----------



## moltoelegante

Tempest said:


> The second video has some issue with Russia, which is absurd as they are becoming the model nation


:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: Thanks for the chuckles. That was pure comedic gold.


----------



## Tempest

moltoelegante said:


> :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: Thanks for the chuckles. That was pure comedic gold.


You're obviously partial based on location, but look how their proud leader has dealt with Soros and Turkey like a man.


----------



## Duvel

I think Obama has done an incredible job, especially considering the strong resistance he faced from members of the GOP and its various factions and splinter groups. I wish he had shown greater backbone from time to time, but I guess gone are the days when a president could act entirely presidential.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> That might be true in your case, but I am 100% convinced that much of the opposition to Obama is about race, just as some of the opposition to Hillary historically has been about her gender. Some people feel threatened by the way the country is evolving, with demographics having much to do with the problem (in their eyes), and Obama to them is illegitimate.


There were as many people who thought George Bush was illegitimate as well. I'm sure there were people who were against him as well just based on race and political party vs. policy.

People disagree with politicians all the time, race is just as silly and capricious a reason as political party.

Ask yourself this: Were Obama white would the GOP have been behind Obamacare or any other of his policies. Doubtful. Politicians use race and gender just as much to get ahead. Keep in mind a majority white country elected him twice.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> There were as many people who thought George Bush was illegitimate as well. I'm sure there were people who were against him as well just based on race and political party vs. policy.
> 
> People disagree with politicians all the time, race is just as silly and capricious a reason as political party.
> 
> Ask yourself this: Were Obama white would the GOP have been behind Obamacare or any other of his policies. Doubtful. Politicians use race and gender just as much to get ahead. Keep in mind a majority white country elected him twice.


Yes, Obama would have been opposed, but I'm speaking of the intensity of the animosity and the nature of some of the rhetoric.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Yes, Obama would have been opposed, but I'm speaking of the intensity of the animosity and the nature of some of the rhetoric.


Examples please. I recall politicians openly calling GWB a loser (Dick Gephardt), a miserable failure (Harry Reid). What about Al Gore's statement that:
*""The administration works closely with a network of rapid-response digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for undermining support for our troops,"* (https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/gore.bush/)

What about any number of references from democratic politicians over the past 20 years comparing republicans to Nazis?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/steve-cohen-republican-nazis_n_811170.html

https://content.usatoday.com/commun...rence-at-democratic-convention/1#.Vl9eVdTnYZ4

I don't think the rhetoric against this president has been anything out of the ordinary. I'm speaking of course of politicians and responsible critics. There's always a carnival barker on the sidelines willing to say anything to get attention. If you go down that road there are people on both sides of the aisle that indulge this.


----------



## Tempest

Well the "Oh Lawdy, That Man is a Kenyan Atheist Muslim Communist hell-bent on destroying Our Great Nation and crowning himself dictator for life!" people are, even in my estimation, laying extra vitriol based on the complexion of the beige president. 
But then you start asking questions about his paternity and upbringing and realize that even the racist kooks can be right some of the time.


----------



## SG_67

^ Sure people are. It's nothing different from what the former POTUS had to endure either. There are always people willing and able to say the worst things. 

That does not pass, however, for legitimate criticism. Most responsible critics have not gone that route. I don't recall anything like that being discussed on a national stage during a political convention, unlike the DNC national convention and the above referenced allusion to Nazism.


----------



## Balfour

Do ya miss me yet?!


----------



## Balfour

God bless the USA!


----------



## Balfour

Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list ...


----------



## Balfour

A missed opportunity:


----------



## Balfour

And this is the America that is dying:


----------



## tocqueville

Balfour said:


> And this is the America that is dying:


That's a nice song. And very representative of the kind of nostalgia one finds for an America that was.

There's a lot of truth to that. White southerners and many up north have been fighting tooth and nail against perceived threats; it's what fueled the CSA, the KKK, Jim Crow, and today much of the vitriol to be found among Tea Party types, anti-Obama "birthers," folks spun up about border security and immigration, and frankly a good portion of Trump supporters. Just this Thanksgiving I had lengthy talks with relatives form suburban northern New Jersey who have very little in common with small-town southerners, but they are very, very afraid of the evolution of American society and appear to live in fear. "I am scared to death of..." was something they repeated. The fact that the country is run by a black man with exotic African and Muslim ties certainly provides little comfort.


----------



## tocqueville

Hey, Balfour, weren't you UK based? When did you make the jump across the pond? Hopefully for good reasons, like a great job opportunity.


----------



## tocqueville

Balfour said:


> Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list ...


Great song. Of course, it reminds me of:


----------



## Brio1

tocqueville said:


> Hey, Balfour, weren't you UK based? When did you make the jump across the pond? Hopefully for good reasons, like a great job opportunity.


Mr. Balfour would like to enter American politics by bringing the ideas of his countryman Sir Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts to our shores.


----------



## Balfour

Brio1 said:


> Mr. Balfour would like to enter American politics by bringing the ideas of his countryman Sir Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts to our shores.


That made me chuckle. Can I choose Sir Alec Douglas-Home instead! I've got as little time for Mosley as I do for Corbyn or Trump.


----------



## Brio1

Balfour said:


> That made me chuckle. Can I choose Sir Alec Douglas-Home instead! I've got as little time for Mosley as I do for Corbyn or Trump.


I'm afraid not , sir. But I will allow Sir Alec Guinness. And what is with Mr. Spacey's ( a Democrat nonetheless) visage ? ( This inquiry is from a man of the left .) Please restore Ian Richardson forthwith.


----------



## Balfour

Brio1 said:


> I'm afraid not , sir. But I will allow Sir Alec Guinness. And what is with Mr. Spacey's ( a Democrat nonetheless) visage ? ( This inquiry is from a man of the left .) Please restore Ian Richardson forthwith.


I will take Alec Guinness. Kind Hearts and Coronets is one of my favourite films.

And especially for you, Urquhart replaces Underwood!


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> That's a nice song. And very representative of the kind of nostalgia one finds for an America that was.
> 
> There's a lot of truth to that. White southerners and many up north have been fighting tooth and nail against perceived threats; it's what fueled the CSA, the KKK, Jim Crow, and today much of the vitriol to be found among Tea Party types, anti-Obama "birthers," folks spun up about border security and immigration, and frankly a good portion of Trump supporters. Just this Thanksgiving I had lengthy talks with relatives form suburban northern New Jersey who have very little in common with small-town southerners, but they are very, very afraid of the evolution of American society and appear to live in fear. "I am scared to death of..." was something they repeated. The fact that the country is run by a black man with exotic African and Muslim ties certainly provides little comfort.


I know you're not saying this, but it is a shame that some on your side of the fence use the fact that there are racist wingnuts out there who hate Obama simply to label others opposed to Obama as racist.

So do you think it will be another Bush / Clinton race in 2016 or do you think Sanders could win through? Jeb is not having a good time of it, is he? The whole line-up is pretty disappointing and the Trump phenomenon is scary.


----------



## SG_67

Balfour said:


> I know you're not saying this, but it is a shame that some on your side of the fence use the fact that there are racist wingnuts out there who hate Obama simply to label others opposed to Obama as racist.
> 
> So do you think it will be another Bush / Clinton race in 2016 or do you think Sanders could win through? Jeb is not having a good time of it, is he? The whole line-up is pretty disappointing and the Trump phenomenon is scary.


I may be a dwindling voice on this but I still say Trump will start to fade. There are still too many people in the race and somewhere between 40-45% are still undecided or not fully committed (open to changing their mind).

I wouldn't be surprised if Jeb made a late surge, but I actually like Marco.


----------



## Tempest

Balfour said:


> ...the Trump phenomenon is scary.


I keep hearing people say this, and when I ask them to explain they tend to respond with female emotionality devoid of reason. So why is the inevitable Trump nomination at all worrisome? Personally I'd long ago written off the cuckservative GOP for third parties but I'll absolutely pull a lever for Trump.


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> I keep hearing people say this, and when I ask them to explain they tend to respond with female emotionality devoid of reason. So why is the inevitable Trump nomination at all worrisome? Personally I'd long ago written off the cuckservative GOP for third parties but I'll absolutely pull a lever for Trump.


I think you just answered your own question.


----------



## Tempest

So it's fear of straight white Christian males having someone standing up for them on a national scale? That's how I see it, where the villains are upset that their scams are being exposed.


----------



## SG_67

^ It assumes that straight, white, Christian males are monolithic. It's the same as assuming that all women think the same way, all minorities of different ethnic and national origin and so on and so forth. 

Trump, to me, is worrisome not because of any deep seated fear but because he is totally devoid of any ideas. He's not really articulated anything clearly or substantively. Perhaps he will soon but I'm not seeing anything out there. 

He keeps citing how he's up in the polls, but that's about it. We tried 8 years already with a guy who was all personality who promised he would heal the planet and turn back the tides of the rising oceans, yet couldn't even manage the launch of a website. I really don't want another 8 years of personality. 

Like I said, I think the Trump phenomenon will fade. He may win in Iowa but I think he'll hit a wall pretty soon when push comes to shove.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Trump is nothing more that a "*******" on steroids, with incredibly deep pockets. A rich ******* is still a ******* and I do hope our Country can do better than that when it comes to nominating and electing the next President! :crazy:


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Trump is nothing more that a "*******" on steroids, with incredibly deep pockets. A rich ******* is still a ******* and I do hope our Country can do better than that when it comes to nominating and electing the next President! :crazy:


That made me laugh! A very apt description! My Politics students find it unbelievable that such a man has any political following at all.


----------



## SG_67

^ I'm sure you have your share of clowns who hold office, no?

There's always space in our politics for someone like this. I think in the UK the political parties keep a pretty tight grip on their members. Here it's not always the case, especially when it's someone from the outside. Parliamentary politics are just different. 

Trump has brought up a few good ideas, especially on taxes and repatriation of foreign income of American companies. I chuckle, however, when he claims that he reads the Bible. 

I don't have any evidence of this, but my guess is that most of the people following Trump right now are those who are, at best, marginally attached or interested in the political process. I just really don't see it lasting that long. 

He's got deep pockets and the press loves him. Also, he's good at putting himself out there and the media knows they will get ratings when he's on a given program so it's a political marriage made in heaven.


----------



## Tempest

SG_67 said:


> It's the same as assuming that all women think the same way, all minorities of different ethnic and national origin and so on and so forth.


Which has worked very well for Democrats thus far. 


> Trump, to me, is worrisome not because of any deep seated fear but because he is totally devoid of any ideas.


This is nonsense. His ideas on immigration alone are what Americans have been begging for for decades and the cucks just ignored them. Pray tell, which GOP neo-cuck has a new idea in their head, or one that the American voter likes? Trump has both.


> Like I said, I think the Trump phenomenon will fade.


The establishment media keeps wishing this to be true, but their tricks don't work against Him.


eagle2250 said:


> Trump is nothing more that a "*******" on steroids, with incredibly deep pockets.


Look at the faces on our currency and tell me which does not fit this same elitist racial stereotype.


----------



## tocqueville

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Trump is nothing more that a "*******" on steroids, with incredibly deep pockets. A rich ******* is still a ******* and I do hope our Country can do better than that when it comes to nominating and electing the next President! :crazy:


I disagree. I think with Trump we're watching a virtuoso performance. I don't believe a word he says but am totally convinced he's engaging in a calculated performance. That makes him more dangerous. The good news is that it's not at all clear that he'd actually try to do any of the things he says he'll do, since I don't think he has any real convictions one way or another beyond his estimation of the political benefits of particular rhetorical lines.

I have friends who see in his rhetoric shades of Goebbels or Mussolini, but I think he's more Burlesconi, who, though a criminal, was no Mussolini.

While I agree with SG_67 and think it most likely that Trump's campaign will lose momentum post-Iowa, he has something really potent going for him: his claim that he can't be bought. There's a solid core that digs that stuff. Plus, he's tapped into lots of angst/hatred, which is unlikely to dissipate any time soon.


----------



## eagle2250

^^There are many times, my friend, I find myself in agreement with much of what you say. However, this is not one of them. Donald Trump is an egomaniac...his love affair with himself is the stuff of legend...it clouds his every thought. He denigrates women, he makes fun of the disabled, he plays on the fears and insecurities of this nation's population...and for what? Primarily to stroke his out-of-proportion ego! We need a leader of more substance that a two-bit vaudeville performance. This country can do better and our people certainly deserve better.


----------



## tocqueville

eagle2250 said:


> ^^There are many times, my friend, I find myself in agreement with much of what you say. However, this is not one of them. Donald Trump is an egomaniac...his love affair with himself is the stuff of legend...it clouds his every thought. He denigrates women, he makes fun of the disabled, he plays on the fears and insecurities of this nation's population...and for what? Primarily to stroke his out-of-proportion ego! We need a leader of more substance that a two-bit vaudeville performance. This country can do better and our people certainly deserve better.


It doesn't look like we are disagreeing much at all. I really only take issue with the red neck characterization. That, to me, suggests simple.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> This is nonsense. His ideas on immigration alone are what Americans have been begging for for decades and the cucks just ignored them.


What Americans? What is this fetish people have with illegal immigrants. They pick vegetables, landscape and perform other labor long given up by the middle class in this country. We've had illegal immigrants working as migrant workers for decades. I'll agree that we need to be more vigilant on the border to potential terrorists and need to make sure we deport criminals, but the vast majority just want to earn a living. Ask these same Americans if they're in favor of rounding them up pogrom style and sending them out of the country.



tocqueville said:


> While I agree with SG_67 and think it most likely that Trump's campaign will lose momentum post-Iowa, he has something really potent going for him: his claim that he can't be bought. There's a solid core that digs that stuff. Plus, he's tapped into lots of angst/hatred, which is unlikely to dissipate any time soon.


Yes, but that angst and anger can be channeled and harnessed by a smart pol. Trump is ginning up a lot of angst and anger but he's really not giving solutions.


----------



## Tempest

eagle2250 said:


> He denigrates women, he makes fun of the disabled...


He denigrates men too, and in most cases the targets thoroughly deserve it. You would have to show me where he has mocked the disabled, because that weak accusation of the hand-waving disavowal motion referring to Serge Kovaleski, who wrote in the Washington Post on September 18,2001 that


> In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners' plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.


is a big contrived stretch to distract from the fact that Trump speaks the truth while the media lies.


SG_67 said:


> What Americans? What is this fetish people have with illegal immigrants. They pick vegetables, landscape and perform other labor long given up by the middle class in this country.


I didn't even say illegal, but that's the ripest target because...they are criminals and they are taking American jobs. 
The middle class does not work for minimum wage, but any fool knows that illegal aliens drive down wages. The poor, of which there are sooooo many now, might prefer to have these jobs that are now monopolized by an alien culture that is a resource drain on our nation. Boohoo, the lawbreakers want jobs. So do the citizens. If you are one of the people that fails to see such obvious facts, you won't get the vast appeal of Trump. Go vote for Hillary one of the spineless GOP clones.

I am absolutely in favor of pogroms and deportations. I am not a woman swayed by sentimental pandering. I want what is best for this country, and that is for citizens to have jobs before criminal aliens do. To think otherwise is subversively anti-American.


----------



## eagle2250

Tempest said:


> He denigrates men too, and in most cases the targets thoroughly deserve it. You would have to show me where he has mocked the disabled, because that weak accusation of the hand-waving disavowal motion referring to Serge Kovaleski, who wrote in the Washington Post on September 18,2001 that
> is a big contrived stretch to distract from the fact that Trump speaks the truth while the media lies.
> ...................
> ....


Regardless if Trumps comments are directed at a man or a woman, his (out-of-control) comments as to an antagonist's weight or overall looks is inappropriate for anybody to utter, let alone a candidate for the presidency of this great nation. Trumps comments about Rosie O'Donnell, Megan Kelly, Carly Fiorina, etc., are at best sophomoric and at worst idiotic.

In a recent newscast in which Trump was being questioned about his making fun of Mr. Kovaleski, Trump loudly proclaimed he would never make fun of a persons disabilities and while proclaiming his innocence, Trump pulled his arms to his torso and thrashed them about in the manner that Kovaleski's disability causes him to do. In denying he would ever do so, Trump presumed to entertain his minions with his sick, twisted rendition of the condition of what he would never presume to make sport of. I'm unsure of for whom I should reserve greater pity, Trump the buffoon or the misguided fools who idolize him and repeatedly excuse his boorish behavior!


----------



## Balfour

Tempest said:


> So it's fear of straight white Christian males having someone standing up for them on a national scale? That's how I see it, where the villains are upset that their scams are being exposed.


The President should be elected on a mandate and his values, but then should represent the nation as a whole; he should not be an interest group lobbyist. Is it too much to hope for a statesman, even if one disagrees with his ideological views?



eagle2250 said:


> ^^There are many times, my friend, I find myself in agreement with much of what you say. However, this is not one of them. Donald Trump is an egomaniac...his love affair with himself is the stuff of legend...it clouds his every thought. He denigrates women, he makes fun of the disabled, he plays on the fears and insecurities of this nation's population...and for what? Primarily to stroke his out-of-proportion ego! We need a leader of more substance that a two-bit vaudeville performance. This country can do better and our people certainly deserve better.





eagle2250 said:


> Regardless if Trumps comments are directed at a man or a woman, his (out-of-control) comments as to an antagonist's weight or overall looks is inappropriate for anybody to utter, let alone a candidate for the presidency of this great nation. Trumps comments about Rosie O'Donnell, Megan Kelly, Carly Fiorina, etc., are at best sophomoric and at worst idiotic.
> 
> In a recent newscast in which Trump was being questioned about his making fun of Mr. Kovaleski, Trump loudly proclaimed he would never make fun of a persons disabilities and while proclaiming his innocence, Trump pulled his arms to his torso and thrashed them about in the manner that Kovaleski's disability causes him to do. In denying he would ever do so, Trump presumed to entertain his minions with his sick, twisted rendition of the condition of what he would never presume to make sport of. I'm unsure of for whom I should reserve greater pity, Trump the buffoon or the misguided fools who idolize him and repeatedly excuse his boorish behavior!


Hear, hear.

Echoing a PM in part, where are the Reagans and Bush 41s, or even the Fords or Bush 43s? Honourable men all and worthy of the office. And the Doles and the Romneys?


----------



## Balfour

On a lighter note, a little more nostalgia:


----------



## Balfour

And more patriotism:


----------



## CptSlow

Tempest said:


> The right and left don't agree personally, but their policies have little difference beyond superficial social issues. Well, I could correct that to say Democrat and Republican, as the GOP is barely right anymore.


I'm sure what you meant to say is that the right has moved to EXTREME right, the left has moved to center-right and that there is no left (progressive) to be found.


----------



## CptSlow

.......wow.


----------



## CptSlow

Tempest said:


> ..... I am not a woman swayed by sentimental pandering.....


You must be QUITE the treat around the dinner table.


----------



## Tempest

Balfour said:


> The President should be elected on a mandate and his values, but then should represent the nation as a whole; he should not be an interest group lobbyist.


And Trump values America while his contenders largely seem to have other interests. And that is why Trump is miles ahead. BTW, Trump recently told THE predominant interest group that they couldn't buy him. To their faces. 


CptSlow said:


> I'm sure what you meant to say is that the right has moved to EXTREME right, the left has moved to center-right and that there is no left (progressive) to be found.


LOLWUT
So you're seeing some small government isolationists out there somewhere and the free-everything gun-grabbing racists that want abortions for all and subservience to homosexuals are not ubiquitous? From what year are you writing?


eagle2250 said:


> Regardless if Trumps comments are directed at a man or a woman, his (out-of-control) comments as to an antagonist's weight or overall looks is inappropriate for anybody to utter, let alone a candidate for the presidency of this great nation.


I disagree. He doesn't suffer fools gladly or kowtow to the media. He speaks the truth and it burns the liars as if acid were poured upon them.


> ...Trump pulled his arms to his torso and thrashed them about in the manner that Kovaleski's disability causes him to do...


Trump addresses Serge as a journalist and not merely as a handicapped person. He's giving the man more humanity and dignity than the media does. Sadly, Serge's condition is being exploited in this transparently feeble attempt to smear Trump and distract from his many smoking guns. Apparently some blue-pill people are buying this contrived accusation.

Also not mocking anyone.


----------



## eagle2250

^^It strikes me that your perspectives seem to be representative of the sad state into which the core values of far too many in this country have fallen. Chivalry, courage and charity have been replaced by self interest, school yard, bully-boy tactics and personal greed. It's sad, really!


----------



## Tempest

Quick quiz: was Trump mocking this military general's non-existent disability during the same speech? Ah skip to 33s.




bonus question: Does Serge in any way speak or move in a manner like the one Trump did???
The lying press is lying. Also, we have a long rich tradition of national leaders being less than civil, from back when we were a proud nation.


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> Also not mocking anyone.


Arguably among the most annoying people currently in the public square.


----------



## Tempest

It is important to note that President Obama does not expect his policies to achieve results overnight.


----------



## CptSlow

SG_67 said:


> Arguably among the most annoying people currently in the public square.


Why, because he calls bullshit on all the anti-science nonsense?


----------



## SG_67

^ He himself is anti-science. 

If I find another scientist who disagrees with him would the former be full of nonsense and BS?


----------



## CptSlow

SG_67 said:


> ^ He himself is anti-science.


Ummmmm.......what?


----------



## SG_67

CptSlow said:


> Ummmmm.......what?


First of all his field is astrophysics. I'm not aware that he has done anything in the field of meteorology or the study of weather. This is like relying on a dentist to give you advice on colorectal disorders (no offense meant to dentists or proctologists).

Very much like Bill Nuy the science guy who has a BS in mechanical engineering yet always appears on news programs talking about global warming, or cooling or what ever other catch phrase of the day.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a celebrity who happens to have a PhD in one of the many fields in science. He spouts off about topics that he really has no expertise in and if someone disagrees with him, the former gets criticized by him and "debunked".


----------



## CptSlow

SG_67 said:


> First of all his field is astrophysics. I'm not aware that he has done anything in the field of meteorology or the study of weather. This is like relying on a dentist to give you advice on colorectal disorders (no offense meant to dentists or proctologists).
> 
> Very much like Bill Nuy the science guy who has a BS in mechanical engineering yet always appears on news programs talking about global warming, or cooling or what ever other catch phrase of the day.
> 
> Neil deGrasse Tyson is a celebrity who happens to have a PhD in one of the many fields in science. He spouts off about topics that he really has no expertise in and if someone disagrees with him, the former gets criticized by him and "debunked".


Not going to argue with you on your points. However, he's still a rather brilliant scientist n his field, and rather engaging in the public eye. That gives him quite enough credibility to call bullshit on the anti-sciencers, and anyone who gets young people interested in the field of science, and not the fields of bullshit, is a win, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## SG_67

I don't doubt that he's smart and I wouldn't want to argue with him about the physics of black holes, but brilliant? There are tons of astrophysicists out there. Is he special among them?

He's certainly engaging and much like Carl Sagan did for me, I'm sure he makes many young people (at least in this country) interested in science which I think in the end is a good thing. But as for the calling out the "anti science BS", disagreeing with him on a point of scientific theory does not make one a BS'er. 

There are plenty of climate scientists who don't buy into the urgency with which the matter is being treated right now. Their opinions are based on scientific evidence, just the same way at times physicians disagree on the particular course of treatment for a particular condition.


----------



## Shaver

Please, let us have no climate change denialism - those guys make the purveyors of ''9/11 was a hoax'' look sensible by comparison. At any rate there is little point arguing about it for the multi-national conglomerates are committed to a strict agenda of f***ing up the planet for profit, we may as well just sit back and enjoy the sleigh ride towards oblivion. I'll get the drinks in.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> Please, let us have no climate change denialism - those guys make the purveyors of ''9/11 was a hoax'' look sensible by comparison. At any rate there is little point arguing about it for the multi-national conglomerates are committed to a strict agenda of f***ing up the planet for profit, we may as well just sit back and enjoy the sleigh ride towards oblivion. I'll get the drinks in.


It always amazes me when people who like to claim science and fact are on their side jump right to labeling any skeptics as a denier. To be quite honest, folks in Salem har more of an open mind towards witches than global warming zealots do towards anyone who dares question their unproven assertions.


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> It always amazes me when people who like to claim science and fact are on their side jump right to labeling any skeptics as a denier. To be quite honest, folks in Salem har more of an open mind towards witches than global warming zealots do towards anyone who dares question their unproven assertions.


I am a zealot but you are a skeptic? Very open minded.

You will, I am certain, be relieved to hear that it does not amaze me though, such process are typical of denialists of every stripe.

No amount of evidence will satisfy those who refuse to see.

.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> I am a zealot but you are a skeptic? Very open minded.
> 
> You will, I am certain, be relieved to hear that it does not amaze me though, such process are typical of denialists of every stripe.
> 
> No amount of evidence will satisfy those who refuse to see.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .


Thanks for proving my point by attacking me while not offering any proof.


----------



## Shaver

I recall that you were once an agile debater, indeed a worthy opponent. How distant those days seem now.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> I recall that you were once an agile debater, indeed a worthy opponent. How distant those days seem now.


I require someone with facts as opposed to the nanny nanny boo boo defense.

That can can apply to both your comments on global warming and my debating prowess.


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> I require someone with facts as opposed to the nanny nanny boo boo defense.
> 
> That can can apply to both your comments on global warming and my debating prowess.


You would seem to have become incoherent, again.

Look upon his works ye mighty, and despair.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> You would seem to have become incoherent, again.
> 
> Look upon his works ye mighty, and despair.


incoherence is all that you have givem me to work with. For God's sakes I'm only a doctor, Jim!

Are you saying that, without any doubt, that it has been proven that only possible cause of climate change can be man?


----------



## Balfour

As interesting as the climate change debate is, perhaps it could be taken to a thread of its own rather than hijack mine?


----------



## Balfour




----------



## Balfour




----------



## Tempest

I hope that President Trump will fix our lack of an official national language.
John Ellis Bush speaks some foreign tongue with his own family in his own home, yet wants to be our national leader.


----------



## bernoulli

Your argument shows you do not understand how science works (I am a social scientist and have dozens of published papers - not using the authority argument, just pointing out where I am coming from).

1 - There is always doubt, even if a tiny tiny bit of it. 
2 - Climate change is a complex phenomena (as in complex science phenomena, not the usual meaning of the word). There is no single cause. However, scientists agree that man is an important component of climate change and is an important driver. We change the way we produce and consume things and we will certainly (or as certainly as science can get) have an impact on Earth's environment.

Let me give you an example. There is a positive probability that if you punch a solid metal door your hand will pass through it (quantum physics is nuts!). However, the probability is so mind-boggingly small that nobody in their sane mind would ever count on it while throwing a punch. Same with men's effects on Earth's climate. We know it is there, we know most of the mechanisms in which economic activities generate climate change, and we can see its effect. Science works, even if you don't believe in it.



vpkozel said:


> incoherence is all that you have givem me to work with. For God's sakes I'm only a doctor, Jim!
> 
> Are you saying that, without any doubt, that it has been proven that only possible cause of climate change can be man?


----------



## bernoulli

Sorry about that.

So let me tackle your thread. Being a non-US (or European) citizen, and literate in economics, I cannot see how anybody can complain of Mr. Obama's handling of the US economy. He is certainly not a bad president, IMHO. As every president he will have done some things right and some things wrong. I would argue that he is an average or above average one, and much better than his immediate predecessor. Also, I find it fascinating the kind of strong reaction in your videos. Hard to argue against the polarization of American politics, something that is even dangerous.



Balfour said:


> As interesting as the climate change debate is, perhaps it could be taken to a thread of its own rather than hijack mine?


----------



## Tempest

bernoulli said:


> Being a non-US (or European) citizen, and literate in economics, I cannot see how anybody can complain of Mr. Obama's handling of the US economy...Hard to argue against the polarization of American politics, something that is even dangerous.


There were two approaches BO could have taken to his inherited Bush economy. One was to do a whopping "Helicopter Ben" stimulus to jump start things. The other was to let the free market fix itself. He chose a pusillanimous middle road approach that accomplished nothing and perpetuated the stagnancy. 
I note that when the left goes down their dangerous path, nobody cries about divisiveness or uncooperativeness or partisanship yadda yadda. When the right objects to these dangerous policies, certain types act as if this is just being done to cause trouble.


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> Your argument shows you do not understand how science works (I am a social scientist and have dozens of published papers - not using the authority argument, just pointing out where I am coming from).
> 
> 1 - There is always doubt, even if a tiny tiny bit of it.
> 2 - Climate change is a complex phenomena (as in complex science phenomena, not the usual meaning of the word). There is no single cause. However, scientists agree that man is an important component of climate change and is an important driver. We change the way we produce and consume things and we will certainly (or as certainly as science can get) have an impact on Earth's environment.
> 
> Let me give you an example. There is a positive probability that if you punch a solid metal door your hand will pass through it (quantum physics is nuts!). However, the probability is so mind-boggingly small that nobody in their sane mind would ever count on it while throwing a punch. Same with men's effects on Earth's climate. We know it is there, we know most of the mechanisms in which economic activities generate climate change, and we can see its effect. Science works, even if you don't believe in it.


Ah yes, the old standby of if you don't agree with the conclusion that man has caused climate change then you don't understand science. Always good fun.

Your analogy is so faulty as to be laughable. There is absolutely zero chance that if you punch a door that the physical laws change so much so that your hand will pass through it. It may pass through it for a variety of other reasons - it is old and corroded, you are insanely strong, it is very thin, etc. But in each of those cases the physical laws still apply.

I won't clutter up this thread any further, but am happy to discuss the current flaws in climate change science - and there are many - if you would like to start another thread or via PM.


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> Ah yes, the old standby of if you don't agree with the conclusion that man has caused climate change then you don't understand science. Always good fun.
> 
> Your analogy is so faulty as to be laughable. There is absolutely zero chance that if you punch a door that the physical laws change so much so that your hand will pass through it. It may pass through it for a variety of other reasons - it is old and corroded, you are insanely strong, it is very thin, etc. But in each of those cases the physical laws still apply.
> 
> I won't clutter up this thread any further, but am happy to discuss the current flaws in climate change science - and there are many - if you would like to start another thread or via PM.


Please do join us on the "overpopulation" thread if you like.

BTW, you are incorrect - there is a chance that a hand might pass through a door. Physical laws (to the best of our current models) operate at a quantum level. At the quantum level all manner of counter-intuitive events occur, as example, quantum tunnelling, superconductivity and superfluidity. Whilst the decoherence of quantum events suppresses their cumulative exhibition in the macroscopic realm, still, they are statistically capable of so doing.

.
.
.

.


----------



## eagle2250

Tempest said:


> There were two approaches BO could have taken to his inherited Bush economy. One was to do a whopping "Helicopter Ben" stimulus to jump start things. The other was to let the free market fix itself. He chose a pusillanimous middle road approach that accomplished nothing and perpetuated the stagnancy.
> I note that when the left goes down their dangerous path, nobody cries about divisiveness or uncooperativeness or partisanship yadda yadda. When the right objects to these dangerous policies, certain types act as if this is just being done to cause trouble.


Jeez Louise, I agree with you on something...LOL, Hell must have frozen over! However I would add that a moments reflection on the spending of all those stimulus plan dollars early on, can almost be viewed as criminal...most of the money going to cover budgetary shortfalls at the state and local levels, with virtually no accountability for how the money was actually spent being required. How much, if any, was spent on enduring infrastructure repairs/enhancements? But the Obama's political buddies did get their high flier projects funded at the taxpayers expense!


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> Please do join us on the "overpopulation" thread if you like.
> 
> BTW, you are incorrect - there is a chance that a hand might pass through a door. Physical laws (to the best of our current models) operate at a quantum level. At the quantum level all manner of counter-intuitive events occur, as example, quantum tunnelling, superconductivity and superfluidity. Whilst the decoherence of quantum events suppresses their cumulative exhibition in the macroscopic realm, still, they are statistically capable of so doing.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> .


I am trying to join that thread as I definitely have thoughts on it, but there is just too much going on to be able to provide anything substantive at the moment.

And you you are proving my point on the door. You can't claim something is science and then just say, well trust me on that. I mean, you CAN, but then you have opened yourself up to me being able to prove God with exactly the same proof.


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> I am trying to join that thread as I definitely have thoughts on it, but there is just too much going on to be able to provide anything substantive at the moment.
> 
> And you you are proving my point on the door. *You can't claim something is science and then just say, well trust me on that*. I mean, you CAN, but then you have opened yourself up to me being able to prove God with exactly the same proof.


Please identify where this alleged event occurs within my post.

Further, do not be afraid of joining the 'overpopulation' thread, nor be ashamed of your less than substantive contributions.


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> Please identify where this alleged event occurs within my post.
> 
> Further, do not be afraid of joining the 'overpopulation' thread, nor be ashamed of your less than substantive contributions.


right here



Shaver said:


> Physical laws (to the best of our current models).


very well played on the last point and humorous to boot. But, as you well know, I am not worried about my capability to debate but rather the time to add more than cursory comments.

As rare as it may sound, I actually enjoy hearing others' points of view because it forces me to think and reexamine my own.


----------



## bernoulli

Let free markets roam is not the solution given a massive financial crisis. So your free market option was never an option. We have regulation because financial markets generate a ton of possible negative externalities. We learned that lesson during the great depression. So choices were among tons of stimulus or less than that. Obama choose the second option, which is fine. The economy is far from stagnant, and it is growing at 3% a year. The only stagnant feature is wage growth, but that is mostly due to structural issues in the US economy, ocmpletely unrelated to the stimulus or financial crisis.



Tempest said:


> There were two approaches BO could have taken to his inherited Bush economy. One was to do a whopping "Helicopter Ben" stimulus to jump start things. The other was to let the free market fix itself. He chose a pusillanimous middle road approach that accomplished nothing and perpetuated the stagnancy.
> I note that when the left goes down their dangerous path, nobody cries about divisiveness or uncooperativeness or partisanship yadda yadda. When the right objects to these dangerous policies, certain types act as if this is just being done to cause trouble.


----------



## bernoulli

You are wrong. You don't understand quantum physics. Google quantum tunneling. Sorry. No need to PM, this is basic science nowadays. I publish peer-refereed research. Science works, weather you believe it or not, and is self-correcting. That is why models today show that climate change is caused, among other things, by economic activity. Deal with it or stay in denial. To tie it into the present discussion, there is a ton of denialism of basic economics in many discussions of recent events in the US. One example :

Free markets are self-correcting - not always, in natural monopolies we need regulation (Jean Tirole won the equivalent of the Nobel Prize by developing optimal models of regulation), as we also do in financial markets.



vpkozel said:


> Your analogy is so faulty as to be laughable. There is absolutely zero chance that if you punch a door that the physical laws change so much so that your hand will pass through it.


----------



## vpkozel

bernoulli said:


> You are wrong. You don't understand quantum physics. Google quantum tunneling. Sorry. No need to PM, this is basic science nowadays. I publish peer-refereed research. Science works, weather you believe it or not, and is self-correcting. That is why models today show that climate change is caused, among other things, by economic activity. Deal with it or stay in denial. To tie it into the present discussion, there is a ton of denialism of basic economics in many discussions of recent events in the US. One example :
> 
> Free markets are self-correcting - not always, in natural monopolies we need regulation (Jean Tirole won the equivalent of the Nobel Prize by developing optimal models of regulation), as we also do in financial markets.


I'll make it easy on you chief. Why don't you link to the article that shows that someone has demonstrated that the quantam tunneling resulted in a hand passing through a door - or any everyday solid through another everyday solid.


----------



## bernoulli

Here, go nuts:

https://www.researchgate.net/profil..._nl304078v/links/0fcfd50f57eb741692000000.pdf
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja026407g

Your comment on everyday solids is laughable. If you can't see it it does not exist? You can only understand it if it is dumbed down to the common man? Sorry, that is not how science works. Your everyday perception is only so because the probability of quantum events on every day life is too small. Just because you cannot experience does not make quantum theory invalid. Really, I don't understand where are you coming from. Is simple science too incredible for you? It seems that no amount of scientific evidence is going to change your views. A shame.



vpkozel said:


> I'll make it easy on you chief. Why don't you link to the article that shows that someone has demonstrated that the quantam tunneling resulted in a hand passing through a door - or any everyday solid through another everyday solid.


----------



## Balfour

Again, grateful if the climate change material and related spin-offs could be posted elsewhere. Clearly lots of you want to have at it on both sides, so why not start a separate thread?


----------



## Shaver

For crying out loud vp, quit provoking Mr B. and accept the invitation to join in with the 'overpopulation' thread. It's right next to this thread, I have every confidence in your ability to locate it.


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> For crying out loud vp, quit provoking Mr B. and accept the invitation to join in with the 'overpopulation' thread. It's right next to this thread, I have every confidence in your ability to locate it.


To make things even easier: Overpopulation thread:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?229572-Overpopulation


----------



## Tempest

bernoulli said:


> Let free markets roam is not the solution given a massive financial crisis. So your free market option was never an option.


Because the shaman says so? Have you heard of Adam Smith????


----------



## bernoulli

Yes, Smith is kind of required reading for econ majors . Financial markets cannot go unregulated, however. The reason is a simple one: when a bank goes bankrupt (Lehman Brothers) it can trigger a bank run, even on solvent institutions.This is a feature of the interconectedness of financial markets. Hence, every single country has a Central Bank and/or supervisory agencies to regulate financial markets. It is basic Macro 101. And even Adam Smith was a free market guy CONDITIONAL on some factors. There are no free financial markets in the world. Anywhere. Nor there should be.

Look, I don't do ideology. I do science. This is truly basic economics. Free markets result in efficient allocation only when property rights are truly well defined. The damage of a bank run is an externality that needs to be regulated away in some form (actually, it is much more complicated than that, but I don't want to use a lot of technical jargon).



Tempest said:


> Because the shaman says so? Have you heard of Adam Smith????


----------



## bernoulli

To tie it to this topic. The necessity of financial regulation is both the cause (deregulation of financial markets played a major role in the crisis of 07/08) and the reason why in BOTH Bush Jr and Obama administration there was intervention in the American financial markets.


----------



## Balfour

Tempest said:


> There were two approaches BO could have taken to his inherited Bush economy. One was to do a whopping "Helicopter Ben" stimulus to jump start things. The other was to let the free market fix itself. He chose a pusillanimous middle road approach that accomplished nothing and perpetuated the stagnancy.
> I note that when the left goes down their dangerous path, nobody cries about divisiveness or uncooperativeness or partisanship yadda yadda. When the right objects to these dangerous policies, certain types act as if this is just being done to cause trouble.





bernoulli said:


> Yes, Smith is kind of required reading for econ majors . Financial markets cannot go unregulated, however. The reason is a simple one: when a bank goes bankrupt (Lehman Brothers) it can trigger a bank run, even on solvent institutions.This is a feature of the interconectedness of financial markets. Hence, every single country has a Central Bank and/or supervisory agencies to regulate financial markets. It is basic Macro 101. And even Adam Smith was a free market guy CONDITIONAL on some factors. There are no free financial markets in the world. Anywhere. Nor there should be.
> 
> Look, I don't do ideology. I do science. This is truly basic economics. Free markets result in efficient allocation only when property rights are truly well defined. The damage of a bank run is an externality that needs to be regulated away in some form (actually, it is much more complicated than that, but I don't want to use a lot of technical jargon).


This is a disingenuous response to the post to which you were responding (about the stimulus package). The fact that bank failures require regulation (due to the negative externalities of which market economics do not take account) is in no way a defence of the stimulus package or Keynesian economics.

I would dispute the assertion that economics is a science. If only it were that simple.


----------



## bernoulli

Dear Balfour,

I am terribly sorry. You are completely right in that I did not make my argument clear. Let me try to rectify that:

What I call the free market option is no intervention on both financial markets and the "real" economy (as we economists call the part of the economy that is disassociated from financial markets).

So here are the options:
1 - Free Market: no intervention in financial markets or the real economy - undoable.
2 - Just Financial Markets: intervention in financial markets (light or heavy, with bail out of banks and Freddie and Fannie) and no stimulus: doable, but not truly free market. Most DSCGE models show it would not work in such a situation, but one could argue for option number 2. 
3 - Intervention. Bail out banks and send out a stimulus package for the real economy.
Both Bush Jr and Obama chose option 3. Obama's stimulus was higher than Bush Jr., for sure, but less than some argued for.

There was no free market option. Hope that clears it up.

Economics is a science. Macroeconomics depends on complex dynamic systems. It is the same reason we can predict the weather for short periods, but suck at long term predictions. Other branches of economics yield more robust results.



Balfour said:


> This is a disingenuous response to the post to which you were responding (about the stimulus package). The fact that bank failures require regulation (due to the negative externalities of which market economics do not take account) is in no way a defence of the stimulus package or Keynesian economics.
> 
> I would dispute the assertion that economics is a science. If only it were that simple.


----------



## Balfour

bernoulli said:


> Dear Balfour,
> 
> I am terribly sorry. You are completely right in that I did not make my argument clear. Let me try to rectify that:
> 
> What I call the free market option is no intervention on both financial markets and the "real" economy (as we economists call the part of the economy that is disassociated from financial markets).
> 
> So here are the options:
> 1 - Free Market: no intervention in financial markets or the real economy - undoable.
> 2 - Just Financial Markets: intervention in financial markets (light or heavy, with bail out of banks and Freddie and Fannie) and no stimulus: doable, but not truly free market. Most DSCGE models show it would not work in such a situation, but one could argue for option number 2.
> 3 - Intervention. Bail out banks and send out a stimulus package for the real economy.
> Both Bush Jr and Obama chose option 3. Obama's stimulus was higher than Bush Jr., for sure, but less than some argued for.
> 
> There was no free market option. Hope that clears it up.
> 
> Economics is a science. Macroeconomics depends on complex dynamic systems. It is the same reason we can predict the weather for short periods, but suck at long term predictions. Other branches of economics yield more robust results.


This is just sophistry in defining the terms of the debate (a tactic I am well familiar with as a professional lawyer and an amateur politician). There is no truly free market strictu sensu, due to inevitable market failures. The free market model based on perfect information, rational consumers, etc., etc. But your suggestion that there is no free market option belies the common usage that is given to the term.

Attempting to condescend by hoping that your post "clears it up" is a rather simplistic rhetoric.

There is ample evidence that economics is not a science. From a leftist viewpoint, by way of illustration only:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...l-prize-economics-not-science-hubris-disaster

This is not of course to denigrate it as an academic discipline.


----------



## bernoulli

I have no problem if you define free market like the way you did. Unfortunately, you should look no further than Tempest's post, in which he writes about Adam Smith and free markets. For me, that is how people, especially in the US, perceive free markets: no government intervention whatsoever, or as little as possible.

If you state: no intevention in the real economy was feasible, I would disagree with you but you would have an argument. If you state, as I have seen many times, that there should be no intervention at all in financial markets (from the left and the right, both stating that putting government's money was evil - left, or morally unnaceptable - right), then I can easily prove that you would be wrong.

And I am trying to clear it up because I truly believe I did not make myself clear in my earlier posts. And I did not even bring it to light the fact that English is not my first language. Yet, I do try to use good rethoric to win arguments, regardless of the fact i feel like I know more about economics than the average poster. Take from that what you will.



Balfour said:


> This is just sophistry in defining the terms of the debate (a tactic I am well familiar with as a professional lawyer and an amateur politician). There is no truly free market strictu sensu, due to inevitable market failures. The free market model based on perfect information, rational consumers, etc., etc. But your suggestion that there is no free market option belies the common usage that is given to the term.
> 
> Attempting to condescend by hoping that your post "clears it up" is a rather simplistic rhetoric.
> 
> There is ample evidence that economics is not a science. From a leftist viewpoint, by way of illustration only:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...l-prize-economics-not-science-hubris-disaster
> 
> This is not of course to denigrate it as an academic discipline.


----------



## Balfour

bernoulli said:


> ...
> If you state: no intevention in the real economy was feasible, I would disagree with you but you would have an argument. If you state, as I have seen many times, that there should be no intervention at all in financial markets (from the left and the right, both stating that putting government's money was evil - left, or morally unnaceptable - right), then I can easily prove that you would be wrong. ...


I think we may have found common ground here.

If there hadn't been massive intervention in the financial crisis of 08/09, then, a la LeMay, the global economy would have been bombed into the Stone Age. There I disagree with Ed Montana ('and bankers getting bail outs, what's the hell's up with that'), while appreciating the frustration which fuels his objection. The financial infrastructure was truly too big to fail, however unpalatable some of the consequences of intervention may have been.

But Tempest was clearly attacking the stimulus package for the real economy. The point I was taking issue with was your attempt to deflect what you now acknowledge is something 'you disagree with, but is a real argument' by introducing issues concerning the regulation of the financial infrastructure. It was disingenuous, pure and simple.


----------



## bernoulli

I will wait till Tempest writes to judge what he meant on a one-sentence post. 

I am glad we found middle ground, but I can assure you I was not trying to be disingenuous. You may not believe me, but I it was not my intent. Usually, free market arguments come in absolute terms (see a previous discussion between me and another AAACer), especially when one invokes Adam Smith. That was what I was responding to. I have no problem owning to my opinions or my mistakes. I would also have no issue in stating I was just trying to win an argument and being disingenuous while doing it. I was not. 

In any case, I would argue that no stimulus would slow down any recovery. Yet, I am no macroeconomist.


----------



## Balfour

bernoulli said:


> I was not trying to be disingenuous. ... I would also have no issue in stating I was just trying to win an argument and being disingenuous while doing it. I was not.


Well, I still don't understand why you fought objections to the stimulus of the real economy by invoking the need to regulate financial infrastructure. Seems disingenuous to me, as the riposte does not parry the attack but to those bamboozled by economics it may have given that impression.

The problem with those who invoke Adam Smith is that they forget he wrote in the context of the C18th. He was prayed in aid in the context of the battle against the nonsensical central planning of Soviet Communism. But no modern Western economy functions on a pure free market system; market failure is unavoidable. One cannot attack 'free market economics' based on such a superficial and simplistic basis, though. I take it you are familiar with Milton Friedman?


----------



## bernoulli

I could not agree more with what you wrote.

As for Friedman, he was the last one true free market guy. Wrong (there are no monetarists left), but true to himself.



Balfour said:


> ...
> The problem with those who invoke Adam Smith is that they forget he wrote in the context of the C18th. He was prayed in aid in the context of the battle against the nonsensical central planning of Soviet Communism. But no modern Western economy functions on a pure free market system; market failure is unavoidable. ...


----------



## Balfour

bernoulli said:


> I could not agree more with what you wrote.
> 
> As for Friedman, he was the last one true free market guy. Wrong (there are no monetarists left), but true to himself.


But you cannot leave out "One cannot attack 'free market economics' based on such a superficial and simplistic basis, though."

The fact that market failure is inevitable just defines one terminus of the spectrum. It doesn't say anything about where one should be on the spectrum. That's honesty. Politics tends to reduce the debate to more two dimensional constructs than true analysis forgives.

Friedman was wrong? You'll be besmirching the Laffer Curve next.


----------



## Dhaller

This thread is a bit like a college party at a late hour, when small groups have coalesced to argue politics (in the corner), quantum theory (by the keg), economics (out by the drained pool), and atmospheric science (in the hallway).

And I'm just standing, undecided, with my drink. Maybe it's time to go home? :beers:

DH


----------



## SG_67

Dhaller said:


> This thread is a bit like a college party at a late hour, when small groups have coalesced to argue politics (in the corner), quantum theory (by the keg), economics (out by the drained pool), and atmospheric science (in the hallway).
> 
> And I'm just standing, undecided, with my drink. Maybe it's time to go home? :beers:
> 
> DH


Are there any girls at this party?


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Are there any girls at this party?


There are.

However we had better not indulge ourselves as I understand there is a 9/11 remembrance ceremony which more fully deserves our attentions

:devil:


----------



## bernoulli

I agree that there is a ton of nuance in defining free markets vs. interventionism. And yes, I was writing as if the issue was black or white because that is how most people view it.

There are precious few markets that are truly free, for better or worse.

And Friedman was not wrong, he was dead wrong (do you know the famous quote: "he was not even wrong?" - it divides mistakes into - wrong, dead wrong, and not even wrong, something so disparate that one should not even consider it). A lot of stuff I read around interchange is not even wrong. But I digress.

The Laffer curve has to exist by force of simple logic, although it may not be a continuous curve. It is not meaningful to recent policy debates though, as most evidence show we are far away from the peak of taxation that would reduce government revenue (). It does not mean countries should increase taxes, of course, just that they are not constrained to do so by the Laffer curve.

I have absolutely no interest in dishonesty. And I never attack anything. Some things are factually wrong and are not open to arguments, but a lot of people have "beliefs" about economics that are simply that, wrong. I am not saying that it is your case, just that I read lots of things that are demonstrably false. It happened before in another thread, about economics, and is happening right now in Shaver's thread. Economics is a social science, and constrained by human action. It generates lots of useful models and predictions, but is far from perfect. And it will always be so.



Balfour said:


> But you cannot leave out "One cannot attack 'free market economics' based on such a superficial and simplistic basis, though."
> 
> The fact that market failure is inevitable just defines one terminus of the spectrum. It doesn't say anything about where one should be on the spectrum. That's honesty. Politics tends to reduce the debate to more two dimensional constructs than true analysis forgives.
> 
> Friedman was wrong? You'll be besmirching the Laffer Curve next.


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> There are.
> 
> However we had better not indulge ourselves as I understand there is a 9/11 remembrance ceremony which more fully deserves our attentions
> 
> :devil:


Touche!


----------



## Balfour

Thumbs up for the one per cent.

[video]https://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=1076720[/video]


----------



## Balfour




----------



## Balfour




----------



## Balfour

*Freedom's not free*

Never truer words said than in this, irrespective of political opinion.

God Bless the one per cent (of Americans in the armed forces).


----------



## Balfour

*Dick Cheney 2020*

A great American:


----------



## Balfour

A great American:


----------



## Tempest

I can't agree with these neocon scoundrels being anything but murderous devils.
Can we goof on crying Obammie trying to violate our civil rights with a womanly emotional appeal?


----------



## smmrfld

Tempest said:


> I can't agree with these neocon scoundrels being anything but murderous devils.
> Can we goof on crying Obammie trying to violate our civil rights with a womanly emotional appeal?


What is this intense dislike of women you seem to harbor? Your misogyny permeates many of your posts and, combined with your obvious homophobia, reveals what appears - at least through the confines of an online forum - to be a deeply troubled existence.


----------



## Tempest

Is there any doubt that he was appealing to women? Almost all wrongheaded policies of the last century or so were the result of emotional appeals to women. This is just the way it is. Women are emotional, emotion leads to bad policy.
Homophobia is a ridiculous loaded term.
BTW, the women in my office found Barry's ploy artificial and pathetic, so I'm not saying that all women are foolish.

I must correct myself. Crying is not womanly. It is not even girlish, merely _little _girlish. 
Big girls don't cry.


----------



## SG_67

I wonder who he was appealing to here:


----------



## Shaver

Tempest said:


> Is there any doubt that he was appealing to women? Almost all wrongheaded policies of the last century or so were the result of emotional appeals to women. This is just the way it is. Women are emotional, emotion leads to bad policy.
> *Homophobia is a ridiculous loaded term.*
> BTW, the women in my office found Barry's ploy artificial and pathetic, so I'm not saying that all women are foolish.
> 
> I must correct myself. Crying is not womanly. It is not even girlish, merely _little _girlish.
> Big girls don't cry.


Might we encourage you to elaborate on this statement?


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> Might we encourage you to elaborate on this statement?


Ah, Shaver, you are a rascal.

In the interests of the thread, I suggest this bait is not taken.


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> Ah, Shaver, you are a rascal.
> 
> In the interests of the thread, I suggest this bait is not taken.


Bait? I am sure that I do not know what you mean. I am intrigued by Tempest's proposition and feel that we may benefit from a measure of illumination as to how his conclusion was achieved.


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> Bait? I am sure that I do not know what you mean. I am intrigued by Tempest's proposition and feel that we may benefit from a measure of illumination as to how his conclusion was achieved.


You're a very bad man.


----------



## eagle2250

Tempest said:


> Is there any doubt that he was appealing to women? Almost all wrongheaded policies of the last century or so were the result of emotional appeals to women. This is just the way it is. Women are emotional, emotion leads to bad policy.
> Homophobia is a ridiculous loaded term.
> BTW, the women in my office found Barry's ploy artificial and pathetic, so I'm not saying that all women are foolish.
> 
> I must correct myself. Crying is not womanly. It is not even girlish, merely _little _girlish.
> Big girls don't cry.


Your propensity to stereotype women is offensive. If you take the time to look at the world through a pair of wide open eyes, you might notice that there are emotionally volatile women, just as there are emotionally volatile men. On the other side of that coin, you will find that many women, just like many men are as emotionally stable as a damn rock. Women I had the honor to serve with in the USAF and in law enforcement roles seemed as emotionally suited to the work as the men they worked with and in some instances they proved themselves to be better suited to the tasks at hand. One of the unfortunate realities that contributed to the criticisms leveled at law enforcement authorities these days is the too frequent presence of emotionally 'wanna-be cowboys' within in the males populating our police departments. Frankly I'm inclined to think women are perhaps more emotionally stable than men! :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67

Prohibition was the end result of a movement started primarily by women and women's groups. Just saying.


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Trump is nothing more that a "*******" on steroids, with incredibly deep pockets. A rich ******* is still a ******* and I do hope our Country can do better than that when it comes to nominating and electing the next President! :crazy:


Substitute Muslim for ******* and you'd be suspended, Eagle. But keep speaking truth to power anyway.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Balfour said:


> You're a very bad man.


We agree once again! ;-)


----------



## Tempest

*respecting OP's wishes*



SG_67 said:


> Prohibition was the end result of a movement started primarily by women and women's groups. Just saying.


An excellent example, and one of many that could be used, this emasculating personal disarmament trend being the latest.

I must agree with Mr. Petrik's objection to the racist and classist term *******. In fact, just the other day I learned of the existence of a book citing classism as a bigger problem than racism, Jim Goad's _The ******* Manifesto_. I'm looking forward to reading it.

To get back on topic, does anyone have thoughts on the theory of Obama's single-eye tearing immediately after wiping his eye as this stage trick?


----------



## Balfour

Mike Petrik said:


> Substitute Muslim for ******* and you'd be suspended, Eagle. But keep speaking truth to power anyway.


Quoted for truth.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> We agree once again! ;-)


We must, each of us, act according to our nature. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Balfour

I came across this again recently. Possibly off-topic, but thought it worth sharing:

"It is the Soldier, not the minister, 
who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter, 
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet, 
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer, 
who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer, 
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician, 
who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.".
*
Charles M. Province*


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> I came across this again recently. Possibly off-topic, but thought it worth sharing:
> 
> "It is the Soldier, not the minister,
> who has given us freedom of religion.
> 
> It is the Soldier, not the reporter,
> who has given us freedom of the press.
> 
> It is the Soldier, not the poet,
> who has given us freedom of speech.
> 
> It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer,
> who has given us freedom to protest.
> 
> It is the Soldier, not the lawyer,
> who has given us the right to a fair trial.
> 
> It is the Soldier, not the politician,
> who has given us the right to vote.
> 
> It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
> Who serves beneath the flag,
> And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
> Who allows the protester to burn the flag.".
> *
> Charles M. Province*


I can imagine that poem being made compulsory reading under two or three European regimes of the early to mid 20th Century.


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> I can imagine that poem being made compulsory reading under two or three European regimes of the early to mid 20th Century.


I wasn't sure if you were saying it would be made compulsory reading in fascist countries or countries invaded by fascist countries? If you mean the former, then I think that misses the point (as the freedoms mentioned were not enjoyed in those countries). But if you mean the latter, then I agree with the thrust (while not accepting that there should be 'compulsory' reading in an Orwellian sense of state propaganda).


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> I wasn't sure if you were saying it would be made compulsory reading in fascist countries or countries invaded by fascist countries? If you mean the former, then I think that misses the point (as the freedoms mentioned were not enjoyed in those countries). But if you mean the latter, then I agree with the thrust (while not accepting that there should be 'compulsory' reading in an Orwellian sense of state propaganda).


The first. The point hasn't been missed at all, as the various fascist states all pretended that their citizens had "freedom".

It appears to be part of the rather odious and cynical glorification of our armed forces promoted by our political leadership in order to gain support for their foreign adventures. In the UK it started with the military adventure in Iraq, before then that particular kind of neo-fascist "poem" would have been treated with the ridicule that it deserves.
The various branches of the armed forces would, no doubt, like it, as it fits in with their sense of neglected victimhood, as well as their need for macho posturing, for which one needs go no further than the current uniforms worn for home service by all branches.


----------



## SG_67

I too have a fondness and love for our men and women in service but in volunteer military such as ours (United States) many lawyers, bankers, plumbers, poets and teachers serve in the military and some soliders after they leave the service take on roles in those professions. 

To separate soldiers from the rest of society is to suggest a warrior class that I don't think we really want or need in our country.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I too have a fondness and love for our men and women in service but in volunteer military such as ours (United States) many lawyers, bankers, plumbers, poets and teachers serve in the military and some soliders after they leave the service take on roles in those professions.
> 
> To separate soldiers from the rest of society is to suggest a warrior class that I don't think we really want or need in our country.


Indeed. That is why in British political culture the army, subsequently the armed forces in general are absolutely subservient to the civilian government. We had a brief experience of military dictatorship and have been determined ever since that we should have neither conscription (in peace time) nor an overly strong professional army. It is also the reason why, until fairly recently, the armed forces wore a peacetime uniform that was largely un-military and essentially un-threatening, and only very rarely when not in a military establishment. This was recently replaced with combat boots and combat uniform in nearly all circumstances, which creates an impression that they are "on active service" even when they've popped out to the shops. 
I find the current glorification of the armed forces both disturbing and cynical, especially with our current government both glorifying the armed forces whilst cutting them to a level that makes them ineffectual!
Whilst not being a monarchist, I do find it reassuring that no political leader has actual leadership of the armed forces, that their oath of loyalty is to the crown (and thus the state) not to the PM.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Indeed. That is why in British political culture the army, subsequently the armed forces in general are absolutely subservient to the civilian government. We had a brief experience of military dictatorship and have been determined ever since that we should have neither conscription (in peace time) nor an overly strong professional army. It is also the reason why, until fairly recently, the armed forces wore a peacetime uniform that was largely un-military and essentially un-threatening, and only very rarely when not in a military establishment. This was recently replaced with combat boots and combat uniform in nearly all circumstances, which creates an impression that they are "on active service" even when they've popped out to the shops.
> I find the current glorification of the armed forces both disturbing and cynical, especially with our current government both glorifying the armed forces whilst cutting them to a level that makes them ineffectual!
> Whilst not being a monarchist, I do find it reassuring that no political leader has actual leadership of the armed forces, that their oath of loyalty is to the crown (and thus the state) not to the PM.


'Military dictatorship'? Do you mean under Oliver Cromwell?

I don't agree with some of your views on this country's relationship with its armed forces, but I do regret the current uniform policy, very much so. However, I suspect that cost-cutting has as much to do with it as anything else.

I don't think you need be too disturbed by the menace of a military coup, however - as you say, cuts in defence spending have long-since rendered the armed forces largely ineffectual.


----------



## Balfour

SG_67 said:


> I too have a fondness and love for our men and women in service but in volunteer military such as ours (United States) many lawyers, bankers, plumbers, poets and teachers serve in the military and some soliders after they leave the service take on roles in those professions.
> 
> To separate soldiers from the rest of society is to suggest a warrior class that I don't think we really want or need in our country.


I'm not sure it's seeking to do that.

I do think it is occasionally worth having a reminder, that this does rather poignantly I thought, that everyone's freedom - including that of the most ardent anti-militarists depends on the willingness (as you rightly point out in a volunteer army) of those who serve to lay their lives down for their country and for others.

(I appreciate that it draws, for poetic effect, a false dichotomy in saying 'not'; 'before' might be a suitable substitute.)


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> The first. The point hasn't been missed at all, as the various fascist states all pretended that their citizens had "freedom".
> 
> It appears to be part of the rather odious and cynical glorification of our armed forces promoted by our political leadership in order to gain support for their foreign adventures. In the UK it started with the military adventure in Iraq, before then that particular kind of neo-fascist "poem" would have been treated with the ridicule that it deserves.
> The various branches of the armed forces would, no doubt, like it, as it fits in with their sense of neglected victimhood, as well as their need for macho posturing, for which one needs go no further than the current uniforms worn for home service by all branches.


I disagree that it is deserving of ridicule for the reasons given in response to SG67's post. Don't make this about Iraq. While we disagree on a lot of political issues, the point being made here is about the function the military performs not the particular tasks that are assigned to the military by, as you quite rightly point out, their civilian masters.


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> ... That is why in British political culture the army, subsequently the armed forces in general are absolutely subservient to the civilian government. We had a brief experience of military dictatorship and have been determined ever since that we should have neither conscription (in peace time) nor an overly strong professional army. ...
> 
> ...
> 
> Whilst not being a monarchist, I do find it reassuring that no political leader has actual leadership of the armed forces, that their oath of loyalty is to the crown (and thus the state) not to the PM.


Again, rather to my surprise, I find myself in agreement with what I have selected. I also share Langham's view about the parlous state of the British forces. It's certainly a concern here in America (for clarification, I'm English). Of course, Her Majesty acts on the advice of Ministers, so for practical purposes politicians do control the military but I see the constitutional issues you are alluding to should a Prime Minister seek to cling to power backed by the military.

I wasn't quite sure what you meant by the point I've underlined? Did you mean not maintaining a large standing army or something else? No-one could accuse us of doing that for at least 20 years!


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Whilst not being a monarchist, I do find it reassuring that no political leader has actual leadership of the armed forces, that their oath of loyalty is to the crown (and thus the state) not to the PM.


I'm curious about this. If the UK decides to go to war against an enemy, how does the process of the declaration of war (for lack of a better term) work?

Is it the PM that makes the decision? Does the Crown have a say? The HoL?


----------



## Balfour

SG_67 said:


> I'm curious about this. If the UK decides to go to war against an enemy, how does the process of the declaration of war (for lack of a better term) work?
> 
> Is it the PM that makes the decision? Does the Crown have a say? The HoL?


The power to declare war was traditionally a Prerogative power. In UK law there are three sources of legal authority: legislation (enacted by Parliament or under powers delegated to others by Parliament), the common law (judge-made law developed through cases, including in areas where there is no legislation to interpret) and the Royal Prerogative (powers held by the Sovereign alone). By constitutional convention, Her Majesty exercises most but not all Prerogative powers on the advice of Her Ministers.

In practice, it would be difficult for the Government to engage in major combat operations without seeking a vote in Parliament, as Iraq and Syria demonstrate. It is debatable whether that has yet achieved the status of a constitutional convention, but it is a political reality. As constitutional conventions are not legally binding, major combat operations exercised under Prerogative powers would be lawful in the absence of parliamentary authorisation.

This is based on my understanding of the law from some time ago. I remember there was a lot of fuss about this following Iraq (Chouan, again this is not an Iraq thread - let's not go there) and a consultation on whether legislation should be introduced to require parliamentary authorisation. My understanding is that such legislation was not enacted, but I may be out of date.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Again, rather to my surprise, I find myself in agreement with what I have selected. I also share Langham's view about the parlous state of the British forces. It's certainly a concern here in America (for clarification, I'm English). Of course, Her Majesty acts on the advice of Ministers, so for practical purposes politicians do control the military but I see the constitutional issues you are alluding to should a Prime Minister seek to cling to power backed by the military.
> 
> I wasn't quite sure what you meant by the point I've underlined? Did you mean not maintaining a large standing army or something else? No-one could accuse us of doing that for at least 20 years!


Historically we've always been opposed to a large professional standing army, because of the fear of another "man on horseback". Large standing armies have an unfortunate propensity for overthrowing civilian governments; there are too many examples to list them all! One of the reasons why our large (ish) army of the 1930's spent so much time in India was to keep it out of the UK. 
Of course, in recent years successive governments have pared our armed forces to the bone; even Trident is on a knife-edge budget, whilst the SAS and SBS are complaining of burn-out.


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> Historically we've always been opposed to a large professional standing army, because of the fear of another "man on horseback". Large standing armies have an unfortunate propensity for overthrowing civilian governments; there are too many examples to list them all! One of the reasons why our large (ish) army of the 1930's spent so much time in India was to keep it out of the UK.
> Of course, in recent years successive governments have pared our armed forces to the bone; even Trident is on a knife-edge budget, whilst the SAS and SBS are complaining of burn-out.


Thank you for clarifying it was a quantitative point. Again, I largely agree. No danger of that now ...


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Thank you for clarifying it was a quantitative point. Again, I largely agree. No danger of that now ...


The large (ish) army of the 1930's, along with the Indian Army, was viewed at the time by some as more of a means of providing employment and thus avoiding unrest during the depression than as an actual modern fighting force. The low pay of all ranks combined with their relatively high spending power in India made the army a useful institution. On the other hand, the Empire was seen by some at the time as a means of providing employment for the middle classes. Relatively low pay but relatively high status as administrators in far off places made it a reasonable option.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Historically we've always been opposed to a large professional standing army, because of the fear of another "man on horseback". Large standing armies have an unfortunate propensity for overthrowing civilian governments; there are too many examples to list them all! One of the reasons why our large (ish) army of the 1930's spent so much time in India was to keep it out of the UK.
> Of course, in recent years successive governments have pared our armed forces to the bone; even Trident is on a knife-edge budget, whilst the SAS and SBS are complaining of burn-out.


For my job I've been studying the history of the US Army, and the origins of the traditional American insistence on relying on militia rather than a standing army (the 2nd Amendment was about guaranteeing that we would not rely on a standing army, not individual rights to bear arms, but I digress). The scholars trace that facet of US political culture to the English experience during the 17th century, the Civil War, and the fear basically of a monarch of one religion going after the population, which might be another. That plus the English militia system, which dates to the Anglo-Saxon period, resulted in American views of security in the 18th century as reflected in various bits of the Constitution.

By the way, I just read the 2015 SDSR, which came out in November. and I can only conclude that the UK has lost whatever coherence its military policies might have had as late as 10 years ago.


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> For my job I've been studying the history of the US Army, and the origins of the traditional American insistence on relying on militia rather than a standing army (the 2nd Amendment was about guaranteeing that we would not rely on a standing army, not individual rights to bear arms, but I digress). The scholars trace that facet of US political culture to the English experience during the 17th century, the Civil War, and the fear basically of a monarch of one religion going after the population, which might be another. That plus the English militia system, which dates to the Anglo-Saxon period, resulted in American views of security in the 18th century as reflected in various bits of the Constitution.
> 
> By the way, I just read the 2015 SDSR, which came out in November. and I can only conclude that the UK has lost whatever coherence its military policies might have had as late as 10 years ago.


The irony being of course that the medieval Kings were at the mercy of their Barons and the armies the Barons maintained through the feudal obligations of their tenants.

I couldn't agree more about the incoherence of UK military policy. I look back fondly to Prime Minister Blair (biting my tongue). Of course, Corbyn would gleefully take us out of NATO.


----------



## Balfour

tocque, further to your interesting post, am I right that it is unlawful to deploy military forces in the domestic US to deal with civil contingencies, riots, etc.? If so does that derive from a constitutional restriction? I seem to remember the National Guard had to be used to put down insurrection in the 60s?

B.


----------



## Balfour




----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> By the way, I just read the 2015 SDSR, which came out in November. and I can only conclude that the UK has lost whatever coherence its military policies might have had as late as 10 years ago.


Indeed. We've had periods during our last government in which we had no RN ships at sea or capable of being so. We've had deployments that had to be postponed or cancelled because the logistic support vessels, provided by the RFA (Royal Fleet Auxiliary) were unable to sail because of insufficient personnel. Our last government has been cutting the armed forces so much that we have virtually no capacity for action at all, whilst busily selling off and privatising everything that they can, including armed forces training! Yet, despite our armed forces being cut to such a degree, it is rather ironic that all we hear about from the populist news media is what Corbyn would do to our national defence if elected, not how the tories have _*already*_ emasculated our armed forces. In any case, it is not true that Corbyn wants us to leave NATO and disband the armed forces, despite what the Right says. Another Tory Parliament would see nothing left to disband as "call me Dave" or his successor having disbanded it, or having sold it all to his mates!


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Indeed. We've had periods during our last government in which we had no RN ships at sea or capable of being so. We've had deployments that had to be postponed or cancelled because the logistic support vessels, provided by the RFA (Royal Fleet Auxiliary) were unable to sail because of insufficient personnel. Our last government has been cutting the armed forces so much that we have virtually no capacity for action at all, whilst busily selling off and privatising everything that they can, including armed forces training! Yet, despite our armed forces being cut to such a degree, it is rather ironic that all we hear about from the populist news media is what Corbyn would do to our national defence if elected, not how the tories have _*already*_ emasculated our armed forces. In any case, it is not true that Corbyn wants us to leave NATO and disband the armed forces, despite what the Right says. Another Tory Parliament would see nothing left to disband as "call me Dave" or his successor having disbanded it, or having sold it all to his mates!


In view of some of this, I wonder what you think of Mr Corbyn's recent idea of having Trident submarines patrolling, but *minus* the nuclear warheads?

Quite novel, but I'm not quite sure what the purpose would be.

His suggestions regarding Argentina seem carefully calculated to project an image of indecision and weakness that would bring about the very sort of confrontation he apparently is concerned about.


----------



## tocqueville

Balfour said:


> tocque, further to your interesting post, am I right that it is unlawful to deploy military forces in the domestic US to deal with civil contingencies, riots, etc.? If so does that derive from a constitutional restriction? I seem to remember the National Guard had to be used to put down insurrection in the 60s?
> 
> B.


Balfour, it's called the Posse Comitatus Act, and it is one of the most ignoble pieces of legislation ever passed. The purpose was to stop the Army from enforcing the civil rights of freed slaves in the post-war south and keeping former Confederates out of power. One of the inconvenient facts that belie the Southern claims to have been fighting for liberty and not to maintain white supremacy is that under northern Federal occupation they terrorized blacks, and as soon as the occupation ended, suppressing blacks was at the top of their agenda. The Federal Army fought a full blown insurgency and defended blacks, enforcing voting rights, etc.. This went on until the late 1870s, when "Reconstruction" and above all the Federal military occupation came to an end (Posse Comitatus). With the Army off of the South's back, they were free to terrorize blacks and disenfranchise them, creating the apartheit system known as Jim Crow. This went on until the 1960s.

Why was Posse Comitatus passed? It as a political deal. In those days the Republicans were the enlightened ones who championed civil rights, and the Democrats were populists, racists, etc. The Republicans made a deal with the Democrats to end the Occupation in exchange for the Democrats conceding a presidential election in favor of a Republican candidate (Hayes).

As for federal interventions today, Posse Comitatus can be "suspended" in case of crises. Also, the Nation Guard has a dual status that dates to the Constitution. They are state militia (the well regulated militia referred to in the Second Amendment) that can be called up and federalized when required, so they technically belong to the states and answer both to governors and the president, depending. I don't think posse comitatus applies to them for that reason.


----------



## tocqueville

Langham said:


> In view of some of this, I wonder what you think of Mr Corbyn's recent idea of having Trident submarines patrolling, but *minus* the nuclear warheads?
> 
> Quite novel, but I'm not quite sure what the purpose would be.
> 
> His suggestions regarding Argentina seem carefully calculated to project an image of indecision and weakness that would bring about the very sort of confrontation he apparently is concerned about.


Trident missile boats are far too expensive and too few to be used for patrolling, and they probably aren't particularly good at it. It's a dumb idea. What would be the point? Now, if he were to argue for scraping the Tridents and making a bunch of small, (relatively) cheap diesel boats like the German Dolphins or Spanish Scorpene, he might be on to something. I don't know the actual numbers, but I presume one can build quite a few Dolphins for the cost of a single Trident boat. One could fill the North Sea with them.

His comments re: Argentina are ridiculous.

I find the current UK defense policies incoherent in the sense that there is a radical mismatch between ambition and capability and a lot of wishful thinking as well as obfuscation (crucial details left out, statements that raise more questions than answer them). One can make a coherent case for disarming or becoming isolationist. One can make a coherent case for something more ambitious. One can make a coherent case and build a coherent force structure plan for anything, but I see no such thing in current UK policies or documents like the SDSR. It's almost as if no real professionals wrote the thing and instead it was done by a bunch of staffers who have no relevant background.


----------



## Joseph Peter

tocqueville said:


> Balfour, it's called the Posse Comitatus Act, and it is one of the most ignoble pieces of legislation ever passed. The purpose was to stop the Army from enforcing the civil rights of freed slaves in the post-war south and keeping former Confederates out of power. One of the inconvenient facts that belie the Southern claims to have been fighting for liberty and not to maintain white supremacy is that under northern Federal occupation they terrorized blacks, and as soon as the occupation ended, suppressing blacks was at the top of their agenda. The Federal Army fought a full blown insurgency and defended blacks, enforcing voting rights, etc.. This went on until the late 1870s, when "Reconstruction" and above all the Federal military occupation came to an end (Posse Comitatus). With the Army off of the South's back, they were free to terrorize blacks and disenfranchise them, creating the apartheit system known as Jim Crow. This went on until the 1960s.
> 
> Why was Posse Comitatus passed? It as a political deal. In those days the Republicans were the enlightened ones who championed civil rights, and the Democrats were populists, racists, etc. The Republicans made a deal with the Democrats to end the Occupation in exchange for the Democrats conceding a presidential election in favor of a Republican candidate (Hayes).
> 
> As for federal interventions today, Posse Comitatus can be "suspended" in case of crises. Also, the Nation Guard has a dual status that dates to the Constitution. They are state militia (the well regulated militia referred to in the Second Amendment) that can be called up and federalized when required, so they technically belong to the states and answer both to governors and the president, depending. I don't think posse comitatus applies to them for that reason.


Correct, Mr. T. National Guard units are not subject to Posse Comitatus in that technically they are under a Governor's control but of course the C in C (President) can activate them also for war or misadventures under War Powers Act. Near as I recall and I havent dug into the issue I dont believe the President has ever federalized them for a purpose on the mainland...at least after 1900.


----------



## tocqueville

Here's but one example of the sort of thing Posse Comitatus was intended to stop: Federal intervention to put down white supremacist violence. Really among the darkest chapters in US history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liberty_Place


----------



## tocqueville

Joseph Peter said:


> Correct, Mr. T. National Guard units are not subject to Posse Comitatus in that technically they are under a Governor's control but of course the C in C (President) can activate them also for war or misadventures under War Powers Act. Near as I recall and I havent dug into the issue I dont believe the President has ever federalized them for a purpose on the mainland...at least after 1900.


Correct, although I find it hard to know when something is or is not "federalized." Over time lots of legal fictions have been developed in order to enable the Federal government to deploy or borrow state militia. So the meaning of the word "federalize" becomes vague. Many of the "volunteer" regiments in the Civil War, for example, were militia units that simply became Federal en masse as opposed to being formally "federalized." There were many permutations. But it's certainly true that post Posse Comitatus, the use of regular Army forces in domestic affairs has been rare.


----------



## Balfour

Thank you for a most informative and interesting explanation of the background to the Posse Comitatus Act. I was vaguely aware that such a restriction existed, but had no idea about its Civil War / Reconstruction origins.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> Trident missile boats are far too expensive and too few to be used for patrolling, and they probably aren't particularly good at it. It's a dumb idea. What would be the point? Now, if he were to argue for scraping the Tridents and making a bunch of small, (relatively) cheap diesel boats like the German Dolphins or Spanish Scorpene, he might be on to something. I don't know the actual numbers, but I presume one can build quite a few Dolphins for the cost of a single Trident boat. One could fill the North Sea with them.
> 
> His comments re: Argentina are ridiculous.
> 
> I find the current UK defense policies incoherent in the sense that there is a radical mismatch between ambition and capability and a lot of wishful thinking as well as obfuscation (crucial details left out, statements that raise more questions than answer them). One can make a coherent case for disarming or becoming isolationist. One can make a coherent case for something more ambitious. One can make a coherent case and build a coherent force structure plan for anything, but I see no such thing in current UK policies or documents like the SDSR. It's almost as if no real professionals wrote the thing and instead it was done by a bunch of staffers who have no relevant background.


Corbyn's grasp of defence - of many matters, if it comes to that - seems somewhat tenuous. Should he ever attain office (which is unlikely, but not to be discounted out of hand) he will lose little time in provoking a very real crisis of some sort.

As you suggest, there is a measure of incoherence at the heart of the present government's defence policy. It is beset by conflicting aims - reduced expenditure, while maintaining a viable nuclear capability well into the 21st century, besides building aircraft carriers and responding to a variety of perceived threats in the middle east and elsewhere.

NATO defence spending keeps going down. The UK barely meets its 2% of GDP target, while Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain for instance are below 1% (but none of these are nuclear powers).


----------



## Concordia

Joseph Peter said:


> Correct, Mr. T. National Guard units are not subject to Posse Comitatus in that technically they are under a Governor's control but of course the C in C (President) can activate them also for war or misadventures under War Powers Act. Near as I recall and I havent dug into the issue I dont believe the President has ever federalized them for a purpose on the mainland...at least after 1900.


From Wikipedia : In the mid-20th century, the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower used an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, derived from the Enforcement Acts, to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1957 school desegregation crisis. The Arkansas governor had opposed desegregation after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1954 in the Brown v. Board of Education that segregated public schools were unconstitutional. The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.[3]


----------



## SG_67

^ Did he send federal troops or did he federalize the Arkansas National Guard?


----------



## tocqueville

Concordia said:


> From Wikipedia : In the mid-20th century, the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower used an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, derived from the Enforcement Acts, to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1957 school desegregation crisis. The Arkansas governor had opposed desegregation after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1954 in the Brown v. Board of Education that segregated public schools were unconstitutional. The Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.[3]


For the benefit of those in the UK, the Enforcement Acts had to do with Federal enforcement of black civil rights in the occupied Confederacy. See here: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_Acts

Thus what Eisenhower did was, in a way, restore a portion of Reconstruction and partially go around Posse Comitatus. The north, you see, had won the war but lost the peace, namely by failing to reinforce Reconstruction in the face of southern hostility and allowing the south to perpetuate all sorts of lies about the purpose of the War and the southern Cause. They managed to make heroes out of some very shady characters, such that every week day I drive to work on highways named for Confederate leaders (and built with federal dollars). Eisenhower and the Civil Rights movement began to fix the problem, but the names on the streets and current attempts to curtail minority voting make clear that much remains to be done.

Here's more reading on all that ugliness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> ^ Did he send federal troops or did he federalize the Arkansas National Guard?


According to Wikipedia, he did both. First, after the Arkansas governor ordered the Guard to block integration (in violation of the US Supreme Court ruling), Eisenhower federalized the Guard, countermanded the governor's order, and told the Guard to enforce integration. Then he sent in units from the (federal) 101st Airborne. I don't know if Eisenhower or anyone at the time thought it might be possible that the 101st would have to turn on the Arkansas Guard and in effect restart the Civil War. Thank God it never came to that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_National_Guard_and_the_integration_of_Central_High_School


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Corbyn's grasp of defence seems somewhat tenuous.


Indeed. Many politicians have very little understanding of defence matters, but it rarely stops them from making pronouncements!



Langham said:


> Should he ever attain office (which is unlikely, but not to be discounted out of hand) he will lose little time in provoking a very real crisis of some sort.


Really? In what way? The only politician that I can remember provoking a very real crisis was Thatcher who caused the Falklands War with her actions.



Langham said:


> As you suggest, there is a measure of incoherence at the heart of the present government's defence policy. It is beset by conflicting aims - reduced expenditure, while maintaining a viable nuclear capability well into the 21st century, besides building aircraft carriers and responding to a variety of perceived threats in the middle east and elsewhere.


It isn't an incoherent policy, it is simply a policy of cutting expenditure at the cost of our defence. The only thing that they don't seem to want to cut is Trident, which is the one part of our armed forces that is useless.



Langham said:


> NATO defence spending keeps going down. The UK barely meets its 2% of GDP target, while Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain for instance are below 1% (but none of these are nuclear powers).


Indeed. Yet our military commitments do not reflect our ability to carry them out!


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> His suggestions regarding Argentina seem carefully calculated to project an image of indecision and weakness that would bring about the very sort of confrontation he apparently is concerned about.


You mean the ridiculous idea that problems can be solved by discussion and negotiation? The last confrontation over the Falklands was brought about by Tory defence cuts, and by Tory nationality policy.


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> You mean the ridiculous idea that problems can be solved by discussion and negotiation? ...


Worked for Chamberlain.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Worked for Chamberlain.


It did indeed; it kept us out of a war that we weren't ready for and which the British (and French) people didn't want.


----------



## Balfour

'Not wanting' a war worked out well for the French.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> The only politician that I can remember provoking a very real crisis was Thatcher who caused the Falklands War with her actions.


That is rather like saying the Americans 'provoked' 9/11 by building the WTC.



> It isn't an incoherent policy, it is simply a policy of cutting expenditure at the cost of our defence. The only thing that they don't seem to want to cut is Trident, which is the one part of our armed forces that is useless.


It is incoherent to pursue policies while withholding the necessary wherewithal. I wouldn't say Trident is 'useless' - it may not be needed now, or next year, but if the situation ever arose in which it its deterrent qualities were ever needed, then we would be glad we still had it.



Chouan said:


> You mean the ridiculous idea that problems can be solved by discussion and negotiation? The last confrontation over the Falklands was brought about by Tory defence cuts, and by Tory nationality policy.


This is ingenuous. Any policy that deprived people such as the Falkland Islanders or Gibraltarians of British sovereignty, in the face of threats from a military junta or any other foreign power, would have been cowardice and defeatist betrayal of the highest order.

No discussion or negotiation with Argentina is warranted, and to suggest it is, as Corbyn is doing, seems merely to be inviting them to extend their aggressively anti-British posturing.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> This is ingenuous. Any policy that deprived people such as the Falkland Islanders or Gibraltarians of British sovereignty, in the face of threats from a military junta or any other foreign power, would have been cowardice and defeatist betrayal of the highest order.


That was exactly what Thatcher was doing with the Nationalities Bill at the time. By depriving the Falkland Islanders of British nationality whilst announcing that HMS Endurance was to be withdrawn and scrapped, thus removing any defensive capability from the territory, she was telling Galtieri and his henchmen that the Falklands Islands were theirs for the taking. Tory policies absolutely invited the Argentine invasion. Not only that, but she was also talking to the Argentine Junta about giving them the islands for economic reasons https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Compare Thatcher's betrayal of the Falklands to Callaghan's response to Argentine sabre rattling a few years earlier, vide "Operation Journeyman" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Journeyman


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> That is rather like saying the Americans 'provoked' 9/11 by building the WTC.
> ..... No discussion or negotiation with Argentina is warranted, and to suggest it is, as Corbyn is doing, seems merely to be inviting them to extend their aggressively anti-British posturing.


As I've just pointed out, Thatcher was doing so, although she was just offering to hand them over https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past 
Was that somehow acceptable because it was being done to save money?


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> 'Not wanting' a war worked out well for the French.


It worked out very well in the "Trent Affair". Britain could so easily have gone to war with the US, but the crisis was resolved by discussion and diplomacy, the way rational people solve issues.


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> It worked out very well in the "Trent Affair". Britain could so easily have gone to war with the US, but the crisis was resolved by discussion and diplomacy, the way rational people solve issues.


I'm not sure we disagree on a meta level - of course diplomacy should normally be the first resort.

My counter-balancing point was sometimes war is necessary and sometimes discussion (beyond normal diplomatic oil) is unwarranted (i.e. a serious discussion initiated by a British Prime Minister to discuss the future of the Falkland Islands is not in my view warranted; that is entirely different to the issue being raised and discussed by the Argentinian Government with the British Ambassador from time to time, e.g. as Spain does routinely with HMG re. Gibraltar). Sometimes one is not dealing with 'rational' people and sometimes you will be dealing with rational people who have incompatible national interests that they will pursue through diplomacy owing more to Machiavelli than Grotius.

I might add that diplomacy is enhanced by a credible threat of a military option. Clinton's unwillingness to contemplate military action saw the credibility of US foreign policy fall significantly as compared to Reagan / Bush 1.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> I'm not sure we disagree on a meta level - of course diplomacy should normally be the first resort.
> 
> My counter-balancing point was sometimes war is necessary and sometimes discussion (beyond normal diplomatic oil) is unwarranted (i.e. a serious discussion initiated by a British Prime Minister to discuss the future of the Falkland Islands is not in my view warranted; that is entirely different to the issue being raised and discussed by the Argentinian Government with the British Ambassador from time to time, e.g. as Spain does routinely with HMG re. Gibraltar). Sometimes one is not dealing with 'rational' people and sometimes you will be dealing with rational people who have incompatible national interests that they will pursue through diplomacy owing more to Machiavelli than Grotius.
> 
> I might add that diplomacy is enhanced by a credible threat of a military option. Clinton's unwillingness to contemplate military action saw the credibility of US foreign policy fall significantly as compared to Reagan / Bush 1.


Indeed, but as I've pointed out, a previous British PM initiated discussion with Argentina on sovereignty, with dreadful results, whereas Corbyn seems to be saying that problems can be discussed, rather than offering to give the Falklands to Argentina as Thatcher did.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> That was exactly what Thatcher was doing with the Nationalities Bill at the time. By depriving the Falkland Islanders of British nationality whilst announcing that HMS Endurance was to be withdrawn and scrapped, thus removing any defensive capability from the territory, she was telling Galtieri and his henchmen that the Falklands Islands were theirs for the taking. Tory policies absolutely invited the Argentine invasion. Not only that, but she was also talking to the Argentine Junta about giving them the islands for economic reasons https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
> Compare Thatcher's betrayal of the Falklands to Callaghan's response to Argentine sabre rattling a few years earlier, vide "Operation Journeyman" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Journeyman


Quite interesting, if it is to be believed - and I am not necessarily questioning the documents cited. It begs the question why the government would first 'invite' an Argentine invasion, and then fight at such cost to regain them? I recall the war being quite popular here, and this possibly favoured the Conservatives in the 1984 general election, when Labour did so disastrously badly. This is a possible theory, in which case perhaps the entire business should be seen as a well executed sting.

Regarding the 1981 Nationality Act, it was argued that this made the Falkland Islanders legally not full British citizens, but the Nationality Act had been principally conceived without reference to territories such as the Falkland Islands, to restrict excessive immigration from various parts of the Commonwealth, and there was subsequent legislation in 1983 to correct the anomaly.

Subsequent events have emphasised the Islanders' wish to exercise self-determination in the matter - for the present time that should preclude any notion of transferring sovereignty.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Quite interesting, if it is to be believed - and I am not necessarily questioning the documents cited. It begs the question why the government would first 'invite' an Argentine invasion, and then fight at such cost to regain them? I recall the war being quite popular here, and this possibly favoured the Conservatives in the 1984 general election, when Labour did so disastrously badly. This is a possible theory, in which case perhaps the entire business should be seen as a well executed sting.
> 
> Regarding the 1981 Nationality Act, it was argued that this made the Falkland Islanders legally not full British citizens, but the Nationality Act had been principally conceived without reference to territories such as the Falkland Islands, to restrict excessive immigration from various parts of the Commonwealth, and there was subsequent legislation in 1983 to correct the anomaly.
> 
> Subsequent events have emphasised the Islanders' wish to exercise self-determination in the matter - for the present time that should preclude any notion of transferring sovereignty.


I'm more inclined to think that it was incompetence, and that Thatcher's career was saved by the lives of those killed in the liberation of the Islands.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> I'm more inclined to think that it was incompetence, and that Thatcher's career was saved by the lives of those killed in the liberation of the Islands.


That's your view but personally I think the whole episode had much more to do with the self-destructive Argentine political culture of the time.


----------



## bernoulli

Langham,

I totally agree with you on this one.



Langham said:


> That's your view but personally I think the whole episode had much more to do with the self-destructive Argentine political culture of the time.


----------



## Concordia

Langham said:


> That's your view but personally I think the whole episode had much more to do with the self-destructive Argentine political culture of the time.


Any reason that both couldn't have been at play? Argentinian incompetence is, after all legendary. I hadn't known about Thatcher's (or her government's) pre-war discussions, but that would add an interesting ingredient to the cocktail.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> That's your view but personally I think the whole episode had much more to do with the self-destructive Argentine political culture of the time.


Was it self-destructive? A regime enters into talks with the controlling power about taking over a territory that they've wanted for years. The controlling power makes it known that it wishes to relinquish control for economic reasons. The controlling power then introduces legislation that will withdraw nationality from the inhabitants of the territory, against the inhabitants wishes, and then announces that it is withdrawing defences from the territory. Is a regime like that of Argentina going to think much more than "Las Malvinas son nuestras!"? That we did pretty much nothing when they landed on South Georgia would have confirmed to the Junta (more wishful thinking) that an invasion would be treated as a fait accompli. At one level that was a rational response. Seize territory that was wanted, with the complicity of the Brits, whilst defusing political crises at home. That doesn't sound very self-destructive to me!
I find it hard to imagine that Thatcher would have wanted to engineer a war that we could easily have lost as some kind of phenomenally expensive "sting". I find it much easier to imagine that her government dismissed the warnings from the defence staff (which they gave) of what Galtieri's gansters were likely to do, as politicians so often do with the inconvenient views of experts, and went ahead with her ideologically driven spending cuts. 
It is possible, I suppose, that a person like Thatcher could have engineered a war for her own personal political benefit, or for the benefit of her political party, but I doubt that even the Tories would have done that.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Was it self-destructive? A regime enters into talks with the controlling power about taking over a territory that they've wanted for years. The controlling power makes it known that it wishes to relinquish control for economic reasons. The controlling power then introduces legislation that will withdraw nationality from the inhabitants of the territory, against the inhabitants wishes, and then announces that it is withdrawing defences from the territory. Is a regime like that of Argentina going to think much more than "Las Malvinas son nuestras!"? That we did pretty much nothing when they landed on South Georgia would have confirmed to the Junta (more wishful thinking) that an invasion would be treated as a fait accompli. At one level that was a rational response. Seize territory that was wanted, with the complicity of the Brits, whilst defusing political crises at home. That doesn't sound very self-destructive to me!
> I find it hard to imagine that Thatcher would have wanted to engineer a war that we could easily have lost as some kind of phenomenally expensive "sting". I find it much easier to imagine that her government dismissed the warnings from the defence staff (which they gave) of what Galtieri's gansters were likely to do, as politicians so often do with the inconvenient views of experts, and went ahead with her ideologically driven spending cuts.
> It is possible, I suppose, that a person like Thatcher could have engineered a war for her own personal political benefit, or for the benefit of her political party, but I doubt that even the Tories would have done that.


I'm afraid there are too many inconsistencies at play in the assortment of suppositions and possible facts you have presented.

First, the supposition that the Thatcher government wanted to hand over the Falklands to Argentina. Why?
Second, having decided, for whatever reason, that is what they wanted, they apparently encouraged the Argentines to launch a military assault (instead of signing a treaty?).
Realising this would not look good, they then launched a vastly expensive task force to recover the Falklands.

Clearly there was some miscalculation on both sides - incompetence too, perhaps. However, the war at least had some fortunate consequences, not least the restoration of democracy in Argentina and one hopes greater appreciation of the Falkland Islanders' right of self-determination (although it seems this counted for little to Argentina's recent president).


----------



## Langham

Concordia said:


> Any reason that both couldn't have been at play? Argentinian incompetence is, after all legendary. I hadn't known about Thatcher's (or her government's) pre-war discussions, but that would add an interesting ingredient to the cocktail.


Neither had I, and I'm not sure how much importance to attach to the supposed discussions that may have taken place.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> I'm afraid there are too many inconsistencies at play in the assortment of suppositions and possible facts you have presented.


Are there? Like what?



Langham said:


> First, the supposition that the Thatcher government wanted to hand over the Falklands to Argentina. Why?


I thought that the evidence that I presented earlier made that clear.



Langham said:


> Second, having decided, for whatever reason, that is what they wanted, they apparently encouraged the Argentines to launch a military assault (instead of signing a treaty?).


I'm not sure that announcing the withdrawal and scrapping of HMS Endurance, and announcing that it would not be being replaced was actually encouraging the Argentine assault, but it certainly suggested to Argentina that Britain was not going to defend the Falklands.



Langham said:


> Realising this would not look good, they then launched a vastly expensive task force to recover the Falklands.


Of course it wouldn't look good, especially as the previous Labour government had preempted a previous Argentine effort with relative ease.



Langham said:


> Clearly there was some miscalculation on both sides - incompetence too, perhaps. However, the war at least had some fortunate consequences, not least the restoration of democracy in Argentina and one hopes greater appreciation of the Falkland Islanders' right of self-determination (although it seems this counted for little to Argentina's recent president).


Indeed. If the Argentine Junta had had more sense they could have waited about a year, and the Tory defence cuts, and their reduction of our Merchant Navy, would have ensured that Operation Corporate would have been impossible to carry out. As it was, all that happened was that the reduction in our maritime capacity was delayed by a couple of years.


----------



## Balfour

I've now read 'The Guardian' article linked by Chouan. The Guardian is a leftish newspaper, with a long history of antipathy and bias to Mrs Thatcher and the Tory Party. It is not evidence, but purports to summarise work by a distinguished military historian.

A crucial passage in the article is (emphasis added):

"However, the plan was wrecked after Mr Ridley, whose mission was not helped by a rather offhand and patronising manner, *made an ill-fated trip to the Falklands in November, where he tried to sell a deal to the islanders. Suspicion about the government's long-term intentions grew, fuelling opposition among both Conservative and Labour MPs to any such deal.*"

Even taking the article at face value, all it establishes is a proposal was raised by the executive, a deal was explored with the islanders themselves and things were abandoned in the face of parliamentary opposition.

Choosing to defend sovereign territory in the face of a unilateral invasion is quite another matter.

Really, this is weak sauce to build a predictable anti-Thatcher argument, Chouan, even for you (and we well know you loathe her and her Government).


----------



## Shaver

Turning the full force of the British military on a bunch of freezing conscript teenagers who were milling about aimlessly on a God forsaken rock. Thatcher's finest hour, no doubt.


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> Turning the full force of the British military on a bunch of freezing conscript teenagers who were milling about aimlessly on a God forsaken rock. Thatcher's finest hour, no doubt.


Actually, it was a very demanding campaign to attempt. The UK forces were severely outnumbered in the air, for example. And we can hardly choose the composition of armies that invade British territory.


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> Actually, it was a very demanding campaign to attempt. The UK forces were severely outnumbered in the air, for example. And we can hardly choose the composition of armies that invade British territory.


Certainly it was demanding, being 8,000 miles away and whatnot. Even more reason a diplomatic solution should have been more thoroughly explored.

That Thatcher's motives were to serve the best interests of the small number of Falklands locals seems unlikely, all the evidence being that she cared little for the best interests of the significantly greater number of the population back home here in the UK. Thatcher believed in one thing: Thatcher for Thatcher's sake.


----------



## Shaver

Anyhoo, I thought that it only fair to come out to bat on Chouan's side, a little show of anti-Thatcher solidarity. 

You will forgive me if I now take my leave of the subject? No real good comes of it, our barricades are up, the positions are entrenched. Pro-Thatcherites may take comfort in her legacy and the rest of us may take comfort in the fact that she is no more.


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> Anyhoo, I thought that it only fair to come out to bat on Chouan's side, a little show of anti-Thatcher solidarity.
> 
> You will forgive me if I now take my leave of the subject? No real good comes of it, our barricades are up, the positions are entrenched. Pro-Thatcherites may take comfort in her legacy and the rest of us may take comfort in the fact that she is no more.


Yes, agreed. Neither you, Chouan nor I are going to change our views about Mrs Thatcher. In that spirit I will not respond to the dreck in post 198.:devil:


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> Yes, agreed. Neither you, Chouan nor I are going to change our views about Mrs Thatcher. In that spirit I will not respond to the dreck in post 198.:devil:


Fine fellow.

:beer:
.
.
.

.
.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> I've now read 'The Guardian' article linked by Chouan. The Guardian is a leftish newspaper, with a long history of antipathy and bias to Mrs Thatcher and the Tory Party. It is not evidence, but purports to summarise work by a distinguished military historian.
> 
> A crucial passage in the article is (emphasis added):
> 
> "However, the plan was wrecked after Mr Ridley, whose mission was not helped by a rather offhand and patronising manner, *made an ill-fated trip to the Falklands in November, where he tried to sell a deal to the islanders. Suspicion about the government's long-term intentions grew, fuelling opposition among both Conservative and Labour MPs to any such deal.*"
> 
> Even taking the article at face value, all it establishes is a proposal was raised by the executive, a deal was explored with the islanders themselves and things were abandoned in the face of parliamentary opposition.
> 
> Choosing to defend sovereign territory in the face of a unilateral invasion is quite another matter.
> 
> Really, this is weak sauce to build a predictable anti-Thatcher argument, Chouan, even for you (and we well know you loathe her and her Government).


Try the Thatcher Papers then if you don't like the Guardian. It's all there about her negotiations about sovereignty.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/se...1979-5-4&endDate=1982-6-14&ps=500&theme=DEF-F

It is a fact, whether or not you like it, that Thatcher's government opened talks about the sovereignty of the Falklands with Argentina. 
Your words were "*a serious discussion initiated by a British Prime Minister to discuss the future of the Falkland Islands is not in my view warranted*;" I have merely proven that Thatcher did what you condemn Corbyn for. You may not like criticism of the sainted Margaret, but you can't deny the reality. 
As you've suggested, I do loathe her and her legacy, but it isn't an irrational unreasoning loathing, there are perfectly sound reasons for it, reasons which aren't ideological, but based on her actions, views, and expressed opinions.


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> Try the Thatcher Papers then if you don't like the Guardian. It's all there about her negotiations about sovereignty.
> https://www.margaretthatcher.org/se...1979-5-4&endDate=1982-6-14&ps=500&theme=DEF-F
> 
> It is a fact, whether or not you like it, that Thatcher's government opened talks about the sovereignty of the Falklands with Argentina.
> Your words were "*a serious discussion initiated by a British Prime Minister to discuss the future of the Falkland Islands is not in my view warranted*;" I have merely proven that Thatcher did what you condemn Corbyn for. You may not like criticism of the sainted Margaret, but you can't deny the reality.
> As you've suggested, I do loathe her and her legacy, but it isn't an irrational unreasoning loathing, there are perfectly sound reasons for it, reasons which aren't ideological, but based on her actions, views, and expressed opinions.


While there are many reasons to condemn Corbyn, nothing I have posted in this thread about him and the Falklands amounts to a condemnation. Certainly not the temperate remark you have quoted in your post. Please don't try to spin what I've said.

Indeed my interest was sparked more by the need to counterbalance in general terms the point you were making about dialogue with the corresponding need to be prepared to use force.

I then considered it important to point out that the material you relied on, even if accepted at face value, hardly made out something worthy of criticism of Mrs Thatcher and her Government or a suggestion that we invited the invasion of the Falkland Islands. I also wanted to point out the massive distinction, again assuming the summary is accurate, between (1) potentially exploring a deal involving the Falkland Islanders themselves in some way and (2) deciding to resist a military invasion. Convenient you gloss over those points in your reply.

As Shaver said, we have all had time to form our views of Mrs Thatcher. My admiration for her is similarly based on rational reasons (although it's my experience that people who use a word as strong as loathe are rarely motivated by purely rational considerations). There are Thatcher threads. This is not one of them. Let's leave the Thatcher discussion there.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> I then considered it important to point out that the material you relied on, even if accepted at face value, hardly made out something worthy of criticism of Mrs Thatcher and her Government or a suggestion that we invited the invasion of the Falkland Islands. I also wanted to point out the massive distinction, again assuming the summary is accurate, between (1) potentially exploring a deal involving the Falkland Islanders themselves in some way and (2) deciding to resist a military invasion. Convenient you gloss over those points in your reply.


The Thatcher Foundation has this https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/112605 That the negotiations had secretly opened without the involvement of the Islanders is telling. 
You seem to have conveniently ignored the nationalities bill that would have deprived the Islanders of British nationality in any case, without their involvement. You also seem to have conveniently ignored the withdrawal of defences, against the advice of the expert advice, both military and diplomatic. In any case it was another who suggested that Thatcher's policy was a kind of deliberate "sting" to invite invasion. I, on the other hand, argued that it was her lack of understanding, incompetence and arrogance that allowed the Falklands crisis to develop.
You appear very keen on insisting that threads, which are by their nature organic, stay within the bounds that *you* have set them, yet yourself first involved Corbyn in this thread, whilst urging that Iraq be excluded. If other politicians are included in a thread, it is hardly reasonable that others be excluded on the grounds that you don't want them to be!
As a final point, for now, it is hardly irrational to loath people who do loathsome things.


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> The Thatcher Foundation has this https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/112605 That the negotiations had secretly opened without the involvement of the Islanders is telling.
> You seem to have conveniently ignored the nationalities bill that would have deprived the Islanders of British nationality in any case, without their involvement. You also seem to have conveniently ignored the withdrawal of defences, against the advice of the expert advice, both military and diplomatic. In any case it was another who suggested that Thatcher's policy was a kind of deliberate "sting" to invite invasion. I, on the other hand, argued that it was her lack of understanding, incompetence and arrogance that allowed the Falklands crisis to develop.
> You appear very keen on insisting that threads, which are by their nature organic, stay within the bounds that *you* have set them, yet yourself first involved Corbyn in this thread, whilst urging that Iraq be excluded. If other politicians are included in a thread, it is hardly reasonable that others be excluded on the grounds that you don't want them to be!
> As a final point, for now, it is hardly irrational to loath people who do loathsome things.


My point is that Shaver made a good suggestion. There are Thatcher threads. Indeed if you persist in wishing to discuss this take on the Falklands campaign, why not start a thread to discuss it?

I also think it is good manners to show some respect to the thread starter's wishes in the overall direction of the thread, to prevent derailments.

In the vein of Shaver's suggestion, while I disagree with the substance some of your recent post, I will not be responding to it beyond this.


----------



## Langham

Chouan,

Your line of argument betrays occasional glimpses of a belief in conspiracy theories - you seem capable of seeing things which probably aren't there, of drawing conclusions from rather tenuous facts. The Nationalities Act, as I pointed out earlier, was not passed specifically to deprive the Falkland Islanders of their British citizenship, but rather to deal with an immigration problem from other parts of the Commonwealth. The oversight, in any case, was very quickly corrected.

As I pointed out earlier, there is an inconsistency in your speculated chain of events - secret meetings in Switzerland, a supposedly deliberate weakening of the South Atlantic defences to 'encourage' an Argentinian land-grab (when, if the UK government's purpose had been a transfer of sovereignty, other more straightforward methods were at hand in any case), followed by a highly perilous descent to war, simply to reverse the whole sequence of events.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Chouan,
> 
> Y_*our line of argument betrays occasional glimpses of a belief in conspiracy theories - you seem capable of seeing things which probably aren't there, of drawing conclusions from rather tenuous facts.*_ The Nationalities Act, as I pointed out earlier, was not passed specifically to deprive the Falkland Islanders of their British citizenship, but rather to deal with an immigration problem from other parts of the Commonwealth. The oversight, in any case, was very quickly corrected.


I suggested no such conspiracy. If you recall, I put it down to incompetence and/or arrogance. It was another member, who seemed to think it was possibly some kind of a "sting".
The Nationalities Act, whilst not specifically aimed at the Falklands Islands (I never said that it was) was certainly aimed at overseas territories, which included the Falklands, and certainly, in combination with the talks instigated by the Thatcher government with Argentina about transfer of sovereignty, would have created an unfortunate situation. The facts aren't tenuous, they are obvious, as is the chain of events.



Langham said:


> As I pointed out earlier, there is an inconsistency in your speculated chain of events - secret meetings in Switzerland, a _*supposedly deliberate weakening of the South Atlantic defences to 'encourage' an Argentinian land-grab*_ (when, if the UK government's purpose had been a transfer of sovereignty, other more straightforward methods were at hand in any case), followed by a highly perilous descent to war, simply to reverse the whole sequence of events.


Do you not think that announcing the withdrawal and scrapping, without replacement, of HMS Endurance, against the advice of the Defence Staff and the Foreign Office, was a weakening of the defences?
In any case, I made no such suggestion about a deliberate policy to provoke a land grab. Other members suggested a conspiracy, as I pointed out above, I suggested incompetence and arrogance. In either case, her government's policies and actions led directly to the land grab.

Straw men such as the above (highlighted) do you no credit.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> I suggested no such conspiracy. If you recall, I put it down to incompetence and/or arrogance. It was another member, who seemed to think it was possibly some kind of a "sting".
> The Nationalities Act, whilst not specifically aimed at the Falklands Islands (I never said that it was) was certainly aimed at overseas territories, which included the Falklands, and certainly, in combination with the talks instigated by the Thatcher government with Argentina about transfer of sovereignty, would have created an unfortunate situation. The facts aren't tenuous, they are obvious, as is the chain of events.
> 
> Do you not think that announcing the withdrawal and scrapping, without replacement, of HMS Endurance, against the advice of the Defence Staff and the Foreign Office, was a weakening of the defences?
> In any case, I made no such suggestion about a deliberate policy to provoke a land grab. Other members suggested a conspiracy, as I pointed out above, I suggested incompetence and arrogance. In either case, her government's policies and actions led directly to the land grab.
> 
> Straw men such as the above (highlighted) do you no credit.


I seem to have had difficulty following your argument. Leaving all that aside, perhaps you might say there was a failure to foresee an impetuous, and as it turned out, foolhardy, attack by Argentina. Later on, this incursion was corrected. Without overlooking or wishing to make light of the sad loss of life on both sides, I think you are making too much of it.


----------



## tocqueville

I've rather enjoyed this, largely because I have no strong opinions about Thatcher either way and find this all rather informative. What I get out of it was that Thatcher did a number of bad things that contributed to the crisis with Argentina, although ultimately I put the blame at the feet of the Argentine junta, which, yes, was self destructive. I similarly blame what happened in 1940 on Germany, notwithstanding the errors of Chamberlain, Leon Blum, Deladier, et al. 

Negotiating over the Falklands makes little sense to me given that no Argentines live there. If there were, it would be a very different matter. It seems that ultimately they should just hold a plebiscite and be done with it. With regard to Corbyn, I'm generally of the opinion that negotiations work best if the use of force is a plausible eventuality. Not that one should rattle sabers, but if one's discounted altogether the possibility of using force, one loses leverage.

We should note that Obama (oh, right, this thread was about Obama!) always insisted amid his negotiations with Iran that "everything was on the table" including military action. He always stressed that he was retaining that card and could play it at will. I think that's wise.


----------



## Balfour

tocqueville said:


> ...
> 
> We should note that Obama (oh, right, this thread was about Obama!) always insisted amid his negotiations with Iran that "everything was on the table" including military action. He always stressed that he was retaining that card and could play it at will. I think that's wise.


Re. Argentina / Falklands - another point being whatever the British may or may not have proposed in the early 1980s is a poor indicator of what, having fought a war to repel invasion and with the views of the Falklanders being tolerably clear, should be UK policy now. Of course I skirt over the fact that we could not replicate the Falklands campaign with current UK military assets.

Re. the quoted text above, 'nothing's agreed until everything's agreed' - a great negotiating tactic and one that I have used on many occasions. I wish I could share your apparent optimism with the deal with Iran. :icon_pale:


----------



## Balfour

Langham said:


> I seem to have had difficulty following your argument. Leaving all that aside, perhaps you might say there was a failure to foresee an impetuous, and as it turned out, foolhardy, attack by Argentina. Later on, this incursion was corrected. Without overlooking or wishing to make light of the sad loss of life on both sides, I think you are making too much of it.


Chouan lives in a rather 'Manchurian Candidate' world.


----------



## Langham

tocqueville said:


> ...
> 
> Negotiating over the Falklands makes little sense to me given that no Argentines live there. ... With regard to Corbyn, I'm generally of the opinion that negotiations work best if the use of force is a plausible eventuality. Not that one should rattle sabers, but if one's discounted altogether the possibility of using force, one loses leverage.


I agree. There is nothing that the UK need feel required to negotiate over. The fact that Corbyn has gratuitously resurrected the whole issue is a measure of the man's great capacity for needless mischief.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Chouan lives in a rather 'Manchurian Candidate' world.


Care to elaborate? Just because I don't worship the sainted Margaret does not mean that I'm suffering from delusions. You, on the other hand, based on your often rather dismissive and contemptuous comments appear to think that opinions other than your own must be based on delusions. Mind you, as you appear to be unable to comprehend the posts of other members, your opinion of me is of limited interest. Just to remind you, or perhaps clarify, it was not I who suggested that Thatcher's actions prior to the invasion was a "sting". Perhaps you think that suggesting that she was incompetent is itself some kind of conspiracy theory?


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> I agree. There is nothing that the UK need feel required to negotiate over. The fact that Corbyn has gratuitously resurrected the whole issue is a measure of the man's great capacity for needless mischief.


Indeed. Just as Thatcher did, whilst knowing that the Argentinians had been aggressively sabre rattling over the Islands just a couple of years before. Would you agree that if Corbyn gratuitously resurrecting the issue is evidence of needless mischief, then Thatcher's doing so, when Argentina's armed forces were a viable threat is at least equally so?


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Indeed. Just as Thatcher did, whilst knowing that the Argentinians had been aggressively sabre rattling over the Islands just a couple of years before. Would you agree that if Corbyn gratuitously resurrecting the issue is evidence of needless mischief, then Thatcher's doing so, when Argentina's armed forces were a viable threat is at least equally so?


Again, I think you are making spurious connections between isolated and probably completely separate events in the early 1980s, so no, I would not agree.


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> Care to elaborate?


No.



Chouan said:


> Just because I don't worship the sainted Margaret does not mean that I'm suffering from delusions. You, on the other hand, based on your often rather dismissive and contemptuous comments appear to think that opinions other than your own must be based on delusions. Mind you, as you appear to be unable to comprehend the posts of other members, your opinion of me is of limited interest. Just to remind you, or perhaps clarify, it was not I who suggested that Thatcher's actions prior to the invasion was a "sting". Perhaps you think that suggesting that she was incompetent is itself some kind of conspiracy theory?


Blah.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> I also think it is good manners to show some respect to the thread starter's wishes in the overall direction of the thread, to prevent derailments.


An interesting view. Despite you first "derailing" the thread by mentioning Corbyn, now that the sainted Margaret is under criticism you wish to return to the pre-derailing situation. Sorry, you can't have it both ways; if you yourself stray from the thread you can't then expect to retain control over the content!


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> An interesting view. Despite you first "derailing" the thread by mentioning Corbyn, now that the sainted Margaret is under criticism you wish to return to the pre-derailing situation. Sorry, you can't have it both ways; if you yourself stray from the thread you can't then expect to retain control over the content!


Blah.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Blah.


As mature a response as I could have expected.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Again, I think you are making spurious connections between isolated and probably completely separate events in the early 1980s, so no, I would not agree.


Don't you? I'm not surprised.


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> As mature a response as I could have expected.


Not to be esteemed in your eyes is the best compliment you could pay me, thanks.

Actually just bored of your shtick.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Not to be esteemed in your eyes is the best compliment you could pay me, thanks.
> 
> Actually just bored of your shtick.


Hmm. The abandonment of argument in favour of insults is usually a signal that the arguments, if any, have failed, as is the assertion that one is bored of the discussion. It's the kind of thing I hear from children with great frequency; a kind of "anyway I don't care!" sort of response. Not that I mind, of course, that you've resorted to insult, or that you're now bored, it is revealing of a, shall we say interesting? facet of your character. On the other hand, defending the defensible can be very trying, probably tiring, and probably, as you've explained will lead to boredom. Perhaps you should try a rather more incisive reply, like "Blah".


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> Hmm. The abandonment of argument in favour of insults is usually a signal that the arguments, if any, have failed, as is the assertion that one is bored of the discussion. It's the kind of thing I hear from children with great frequency; a kind of "anyway I don't care!" sort of response. Not that I mind, of course, that you've resorted to insult, or that you're now bored, it is revealing of a, shall we say interesting? facet of your character. On the other hand, defending the defensible can be very trying, probably tiring, and probably, as you've explained will lead to boredom. Perhaps you should try a rather more incisive reply, like "Blah".


Blah.


----------



## Gurdon

Please refrain from personal insults. 

I am learning a great deal from this thread. It would be regrettable to have to close it due to participants' incivility.


----------



## Shaver

May I be permitted to lighten the mood? I suspect both sides of the Thatcher debate may be wryly amused by this little slice of drollery.


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> May I be permitted to lighten the mood? I suspect both sides of the Thatcher debate may be wryly amused by this little slice of drollery.




[additional text to post - funny sometimes smileys can be posted alone and sometimes not]


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> May I be permitted to lighten the mood? I suspect both sides of the Thatcher debate may be wryly amused by this little slice of drollery.


Ahh, happy memories ...


----------



## Balfour

To strike a controversial note, in fantasy land where the Constitution does not provide a bar:

4 more years of Obama > Clinton v Trump
4 more years of Obama > Sanders v Trump


----------



## tocqueville

I'm on board with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eagle2250

^^Oh my, how times and "grand views" of our chief executive(s) have changed.....and, some might argue, not necessarily in a good way. Color me conflicted!  :crazy:


----------



## SG_67

Unfortunately the events of the past week have gone even further to suggest that our government is currently entrusted to a band of infants. 

The clumsy release and redaction of certain elements of the 911 call from the Orlando terror attack with an almost instant retraction of said redaction makes me wonder about the competence of our chief executive. 

I could forgive Obsma for some of the more moronic statements he made early in his candidacy and the first couple of years in office but he hasn't really learned or grown much. The actions and statements of the past year suggest as much. 

For all the talk about how smart and brilliant he was in 2008, I am thoroughly unimpressed. He does not strike me as a particularly bright, curious or deep thinker.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> The clumsy release and redaction of certain elements of the 911 call from the Orlando terror attack with an almost instant retraction of said redaction makes me wonder about the competence of our chief executive.


Tell me about it. A few weeks ago I was at a National Park, and there was a broken toilet. Some President we have. And have you heard about the state of the DC Metro? Sheesh.


----------



## SG_67

^ I'm sure you take cold comfort in that. 

Tell me something, if George Bush's justice dept. had deliberately redacted parts of a 911 recording to fit a particular political narrative would you be as dismissive?

In Sept. 2012 the same thing happened with Benghazi when the knee jerk reaction was to blame a video. 

When the truth is inconvenient, just change the facts. Winston Smith is laughing from the grave.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> ^ I'm sure you take cold comfort in that.
> 
> Tell me something, if George Bush's justice dept. had deliberately redacted parts of a 911 recording to fit a particular political narrative would you be as dismissive?
> 
> In Sept. 2012 the same thing happened with Benghazi when the knee jerk reaction was to blame a video.
> 
> When the truth is inconvenient, just change the facts. Winston Smith is laughing from the grave.


What evidence do you have that things were redacted to fit a political narrative? Or that anyone at a high level had anything to do with the decision?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tempest

They rather admitted to it, although I'll say political "purpose" instead of narrative, despite that being a bit of a cop-out.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/20/fbi-release-orlando-911-transcripts/86130520/


> Later, in a joint statement, Justice and FBI officials said they relented because the redactions had "caused unnecessary distraction'' from the work of law enforcement authorities.
> "We also did not want to provide the killer or terrorist organizations with a publicity platform for hateful propaganda,'' according to the statement.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> What evidence do you have that things were redacted to fit a political narrative? Or that anyone at a high level had anything to do with the decision?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


"Shirley you're not serious!"


----------



## SG_67

It's ok though. Love conquers all.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2016/06/ag-lynch-compassion-and-love-are-best-response-to-terror/


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> "Shirley you're not serious!"


Stop calling my Shirley.

And I ask again, what evidence have you?


----------



## SG_67

In the world of politics we have to ask where is the proof that it's not political. 

Let's start with the fact that they redacted portions where he pledged allegiance to ISIS. Or how about changing "Allah" to "God". 

I suppose you would argue that his pledging allegiance to ISIS and then blowing away 49 people is immaterial as to motive?

And yet the AG is still saying we may never know his motivation.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> In the world of politics we have to ask where is the proof that it's not political.
> 
> Let's start with the fact that they redacted portions where he pledged allegiance to ISIS. Or how about changing "Allah" to "God".
> 
> I suppose you would argue that his pledging allegiance to ISIS and then blowing away 49 people is immaterial as to motive?
> 
> And yet the AG is still saying we may never know his motivation.


I'm in a bad mood because the traffic in DC near the State Department was a disaster, so my commute took twice as long as it should have. What better proof is there that our President is inept? Right, SG?

Basically you have nothing. I say, "prove something happened." And the best you can do is answer, "prove it didn't." Did you learn that in high school debate?

What's interesting is that you make the same mistake, twice. You jump to conclusions about the Orlando shooter, and you jump to conclusions about the DoJ person, whoever that was.

What's interesting, though, is that you're more willing to take the shooter at his word and accept what he says at face value than you are willing to take the DoJ person at his word. There might in fact be some DoJ guidance cooked up by CT experts that says that when possible one should avoid broadcasting an alleged connection between an act and a terrorist group and give that group the attention it seeks, at least not until one can verify the connection. The DoJ person said as much. Although you immediately assume he's lying.

In any case, none of it has anything to do with the President.


----------



## SG_67

I'm sure somewhere along the your road to enlightenment some professor whispered the words "straw man" in your ear. I'd suggest you reference that seminal moment. 

I never claimed that the POTUS had anything to do with the Orland shooter. It's the aftermath that he's bungled. Not so much the investigation and FBI professionals are handling that. 

He's made an issue from something that should never have escalated to that level. Why were things redacted? And why specific content?

As for jumping to conclusions, forgive me for not taking at face value when a terrorist claims allegiance to a terrorist organization right before he takes 49 lives. I guess I should have known better. 

As for publicity for ISIS...are you kidding? Maybe 3-4 years ago when they were on the rise but I highly doubt that today there's not a single Jihadi wannabe who has not heard of ISIS. 

Redacting it actually feeds it even more; "The Americans are too scared to even mention our name!"


----------



## Tempest

tocqueville said:


> What's interesting, though, is that you're more willing to take the shooter at his word...


Dying declarations are generally taken to be true, while statements from political figures are not. Just saying.

I do understand, if not totally agree with, this idea (that NPR won't shut up about) that Obama is trying not to be an unwitting IS publicist by giving constant shout-outs, but who couldn't figure out some newspeak way of addressing it without resorting to thorough omission, whitewashing, and distraction?


----------



## SG_67

^ You're giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's actually trying to do that. 

Personally, I believe that this president is all too happy to bury his head in the sand and pretend the problem doesn't exist. At least exist in any orchestrated and coordinated manner. How many times have we heard "lone wolf"?

Why should this be any different. This guy proclaimed allegiance to ISIS yet the administration is claiming that we will never know his motivation. Maybe he was a frustrated and self loathing homosexual. 

It's an odd thing, this reaction. The target of this particular terrorist attack was a gay night club. I will assume therefore that the bulk of the victims were homosexuals. The left's almost immediate reaction was to revert to an all familiar narrative; a hate crime against a minority group. 

It's easier to talk about it like that. It's obviously their comfort zone. It's a narrative that flows through popular culture and to frame the terrorist as a frustrated homosexual allows them to point the finger at society as a whole, or perhaps segments of the society, that we need to be more accepting and tolerant.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> I'm sure somewhere along the your road to enlightenment some professor whispered the words "straw man" in your ear. I'd suggest you reference that seminal moment.
> 
> I never claimed that the POTUS had anything to do with the Orland shooter. It's the aftermath that he's bungled. Not so much the investigation and FBI professionals are handling that.
> 
> He's made an issue from something that should never have escalated to that level. Why were things redacted? And why specific content?
> 
> As for jumping to conclusions, forgive me for not taking at face value when a terrorist claims allegiance to a terrorist organization right before he takes 49 lives. I guess I should have known better.
> 
> As for publicity for ISIS...are you kidding? Maybe 3-4 years ago when they were on the rise but I highly doubt that today there's not a single Jihadi wannabe who has not heard of ISIS.
> 
> Redacting it actually feeds it even more; "The Americans are too scared to even mention our name!"


I am familiar with the term strawman. I did not use it.

I also did not suggest that you were arguing that Obama had something to do with the shooting. You were suggesting that Obama had something to do with the redaction of the transcript. Hence my insistence that he had something to do with a broken toilet at a National Park.

In light of your argument about ISIS and publicity, I suggest you inform Coca Cola that they can go ahead and stop spending billions of dollars in advertising because everyone already knows the brand.

Terrorist groups use terror to promote a message and also to attract attention. Attracting attention both expands the message and attracts supporters and funders. They're like corporations in that sense and are mindful of the ebb and flow of the value of their stock, for they are in competition with other movements, ideologies, etc. ISIS has stolen the spotlight from AQ, for example, which is bad news with respect to recruitment, funding, etc. People have stopped talking about AQ and only talk about ISIS. Someone wanting to radicalize will thus turn to ISIS, not AQ. Someone wanting to give money will look to ISIS. Not AQ. Not the Red Army. Not the Sierra Club or PETA. ISIS. Because that's where one looks first, thanks to the publicity and the renown.

Similarly, someone who for whatever reason is shopping for some ideology or rationalization for whatever he or she needs, will turn to ISIS, when there are in fact a thousand other options ranging from Scientology to Marxism to Evangelical Christianity to whatever. That's the power of advertising. And the truth is that what terrorists want most is for people to overreact and go ape. In a way, the best response can be silence and going about one's business. Sometimes. The ideal CT strategy would be to say nothing at all and do nothing in reaction other than mop up the mess and quietly, in the shadows, hunt down the bad guys. The bigger the hubbub, the bigger the splash, the more a terrorist group gets what it wants. Politically, though, that's untenable, as the public usually wants its leadership to make a show of going ape.

As for what the shooter said in his phone calls, one thing I have yet to understand is what difference this makes. I get that all of you who repeat Fox Talking Points seem to think that it would make all the difference in the world if the shooter was acting because of "radical Islam," and there was that whole fuss about whether or not Obama would use those magic words. So what if it is Radical Islam? So what? Well, the answer to that depends on a lot of things that have yet to be determined. Was the shooter recruited and acting under anyone's orders? Is there an "infrastructure" that one can go after? I believe the shooters in France last year were in fact part of a network. Or, perhaps the Orlando guy had nothing to do with ISIS? Perhaps in his twisted state he wrapped himself in whatever craziness he thought appropriate for whatever reason and used that as a way to justify himself and transform himself into some kind of hero? I believe the Israelis figured out, for example, that a lot of the suicide bombers, though they spoke of Islam and The Cause in their death videos, were in fact trying to redeem themselves because of tawdry romances or some other scandal that made their lives difficult because of the shame and the dishonor. The Islamists offer them a way out, a way to clear their name and family honor and give them a feeling of being a hero. Of course, in that case it took an organization with an infrastructure to target such people for recruitment, warm them up to the idea of committing suicide/mass murder, get them to the target, and provide them with a bomb. Orlando guy didn't need any help; he might not have had any. The FBI, no doubt, after scouring his hard drive and cell phone calls, etc., etc. might be able to piece something together. It really does matter. Frankly, what scares me the most is not the idea that ISIS is sending terrorists to the US (yet to be determined), but that any random Joe, thanks in large part to the internet and that advertising I mentioned before, might flip and go jihadi. It's relatively easy to go after an organization. The USG is really, really good at that. Stopping the phenomenon of random Joe's flipping is impossible, although it might be possible to profile random Joe in the hope of figuring out that perhaps he's not that random. Orlando guy, for example, appears to have a variety of traits that suggested he was a dangerous dude, although nothing that obviously indicates "likely to commit mass murder."

Or, are you all really insisting on the Radical Islam thing in order to change the subject away from guns?


----------



## Tempest

Where this is a plausibility to the argument of not talking up your rivals, but it is rather inconsistent with the way Obama has shot his mouth off and done political grandstanding on other issues.


----------



## tocqueville

Tempest said:


> Dying declarations are generally taken to be true, while statements from political figures are not. Just saying.
> 
> I do understand, if not totally agree with, this idea (that NPR won't shut up about) that Obama is trying not to be an unwitting IS publicist by giving constant shout-outs, but who couldn't figure out some newspeak way of addressing it without resorting to thorough omission, whitewashing, and distraction?


Civil servants are more than capable of being ham-fisted in their efforts to apply policies to specific cases. It could be the civil servant in question (civil servant...I'm guessing it was a civil servant who made the call, some regional director, and not a high level politician being all political). Maybe he/she's inept, or insufficiently creative to figure out a better way? Or maybe the policy guidance was crap? There are all sorts of possibilities. One should assume something insidious. This reminds me of when the US bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Everyone assumed it was deliberate, when all the investigations indicated that the bombing was nothing other than the result of sloppy work by analysts and targeters.


----------



## Tempest

There is some quip about not ascribing to malice what can be explained by stupidity. I wish that I could remember it, as it does apply.


----------



## tocqueville

Tempest said:


> There is some quip about not ascribing to malice what can be explained by stupidity. I wish that I could remember it, as it does apply.


Yes, it might apply to this case.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> I am familiar with the term strawman. I did not use it.
> 
> I also did not suggest that you were arguing that Obama had something to do with the shooting. You were suggesting that Obama had something to do with the redaction of the transcript. Hence my insistence that he had something to do with a broken toilet at a National Park.
> 
> In light of your argument about ISIS and publicity, I suggest you inform Coca Cola that they can go ahead and stop spending billions of dollars in advertising because everyone already knows the brand.
> 
> Terrorist groups use terror to promote a message and also to attract attention. Attracting attention both expands the message and attracts supporters and funders. They're like corporations in that sense and are mindful of the ebb and flow of the value of their stock, for they are in competition with other movements, ideologies, etc. ISIS has stolen the spotlight from AQ, for example, which is bad news with respect to recruitment, funding, etc. People have stopped talking about AQ and only talk about ISIS. Someone wanting to radicalize will thus turn to ISIS, not AQ. Someone wanting to give money will look to ISIS. Not AQ. Not the Red Army. Not the Sierra Club or PETA. ISIS. Because that's where one looks first, thanks to the publicity and the renown.
> 
> Similarly, someone who for whatever reason is shopping for some ideology or rationalization for whatever he or she needs, will turn to ISIS, when there are in fact a thousand other options ranging from Scientology to Marxism to Evangelical Christianity to whatever. That's the power of advertising. And the truth is that what terrorists want most is for people to overreact and go ape. In a way, the best response can be silence and going about one's business. Sometimes. The ideal CT strategy would be to say nothing at all and do nothing in reaction other than mop up the mess and quietly, in the shadows, hunt down the bad guys. The bigger the hubbub, the bigger the splash, the more a terrorist group gets what it wants. Politically, though, that's untenable, as the public usually wants its leadership to make a show of going ape.
> 
> As for what the shooter said in his phone calls, one thing I have yet to understand is what difference this makes. I get that all of you who repeat Fox Talking Points seem to think that it would make all the difference in the world if the shooter was acting because of "radical Islam," and there was that whole fuss about whether or not Obama would use those magic words. So what if it is Radical Islam? So what? Well, the answer to that depends on a lot of things that have yet to be determined. Was the shooter recruited and acting under anyone's orders? Is there an "infrastructure" that one can go after? I believe the shooters in France last year were in fact part of a network. Or, perhaps the Orlando guy had nothing to do with ISIS? Perhaps in his twisted state he wrapped himself in whatever craziness he thought appropriate for whatever reason and used that as a way to justify himself and transform himself into some kind of hero? I believe the Israelis figured out, for example, that a lot of the suicide bombers, though they spoke of Islam and The Cause in their death videos, were in fact trying to redeem themselves because of tawdry romances or some other scandal that made their lives difficult because of the shame and the dishonor. The Islamists offer them a way out, a way to clear their name and family honor and give them a feeling of being a hero. Of course, in that case it took an organization with an infrastructure to target such people for recruitment, warm them up to the idea of committing suicide/mass murder, get them to the target, and provide them with a bomb. Orlando guy didn't need any help; he might not have had any. The FBI, no doubt, after scouring his hard drive and cell phone calls, etc., etc. might be able to piece something together. It really does matter. Frankly, what scares me the most is not the idea that ISIS is sending terrorists to the US (yet to be determined), but that any random Joe, thanks in large part to the internet and that advertising I mentioned before, might flip and go jihadi. It's relatively easy to go after an organization. The USG is really, really good at that. Stopping the phenomenon of random Joe's flipping is impossible, although it might be possible to profile random Joe in the hope of figuring out that perhaps he's not that random. Orlando guy, for example, appears to have a variety of traits that suggested he was a dangerous dude, although nothing that obviously indicates "likely to commit mass murder."
> 
> Or, are you all really insisting on the Radical Islam thing in order to change the subject away from guns?


I'll admit I did not read the entire post.

However, how is it a talking point to consider what the guy actually said?


----------



## SG_67

I think this pretty much sums up the Obama presidency:


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> I think this pretty much sums up the Obama presidency:


Indeed, it illustrates the increasingly desperate attempts at criticism, I suppose because there is very little to criticise in serious policy issues!
I see that you've culled it from a very serious source!


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> I'll admit I did not read the entire post.
> 
> However, how is it a talking point to consider what the guy actually said?


It's a talking point to think the Islamic angle somehow makes a world of difference, and then to think that somehow Obama, by allegedly ignoring that Islamic angle, is somehow doing something bad.


----------



## Tempest

Keep in mind that large parts of the administration were very busy establishing policy to make sure the _massive_ population of public schoolchildren suffering from gender identity disorders were allowed to use whatever toilet they wished. This comprehensive task was achieved in minimal time, so pardon anything else that may have been overlooked.
Never mind how this governmental focus is probably a huge ISIS recruiting tool...


----------



## tocqueville

Tempest said:


> Keep in mind that large parts of the administration were very busy establishing policy to make sure the _massive_ population of public schoolchildren suffering from gender identity disorders were allowed to use whatever toilet they wished. This comprehensive task was achieved in minimal time, so pardon anything else that may have been overlooked.
> Never mind how this governmental focus is probably a huge ISIS recruiting tool...


I doubt it's an ISIS recruiting tool, but your point about the USG devoting energy to crafting policy about transgendered kids in schools is a fair point.

Funny, though, my Trump-supporting gun-nut Aunt is seriously afraid of transgendered people preying on kids in bathrooms. She's really worried--"scared to death" that something might happen to her grandkids when they go into the bathroom. For her, the spectre of transgendered people in bathrooms is a serious matter.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Indeed, it illustrates the increasingly desperate attempts at criticism, I suppose because there is very little to criticise in serious policy issues!
> I see that you've culled it from a very serious source!


It is a policy issue actually. He's chosen to downplay the threat. That's a policy position.

As for the "source", instead of ad hom attacks, consider the facts; he went to play golf after commenting on the beheading of an American citizen by a terrorist organization. Those are the facts.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> It's a talking point to think the Islamic angle somehow makes a world of difference, and then to think that somehow Obama, by allegedly ignoring that Islamic angle, is somehow doing something bad.


So we've reached the point where Islamic radical terrorists are just something we should learn to live with. Because, after all.....


----------



## 16412

Tempest said:


> Keep in mind that large parts of the administration were very busy establishing policy to make sure the _massive_ population of public schoolchildren suffering from gender identity disorders were allowed to use whatever toilet they wished. This comprehensive task was achieved in minimal time, so pardon anything else that may have been overlooked.
> Never mind how this governmental focus is probably a huge ISIS recruiting tool...


Scientist get some new tools, which they don't understand, make up some theories, present them as truth, and the president is establishing policy on this "gender identity disorders"? How many theories from new tools have been booted out when another new tool shows up with new horse feathers theories? Gender identity disorders with children. This would have been known thousands of years ago if there were any truth to it. And, it's just showing now? I think some people need to stop sucking their thumbs. If this is what a college education has come to....


----------



## SG_67

^ God forbid it's treated like a mental illness.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> I doubt it's an ISIS recruiting tool, but your point about the USG devoting energy to crafting policy about transgendered kids in schools is a fair point.
> 
> *Funny, though, my Trump-supporting gun-nut Aunt is seriously afraid of transgendered people preying on kids in bathrooms. She's really worried--"scared to death" that something might happen to her grandkids when they go into the bathroom. For her, the spectre of transgendered people in bathrooms is a serious matter.*


Naughty naughty.

Body Integrity Identity Disorder is a recognised mental illness (potentially a neurological disorder of the parietal lobe but certainly a monothematic delusion with a heavily eroticised element cf Apotemnophilia) but the urge toward gender reassignment is perfectly normal, eh?


----------



## SG_67

^ precisely my point. It's verboten to even discuss it in that context. 

The problem with the bathroom issue is that it is done knee jerk and is wholly unnecessary. 

What if I decide one day that I identify as a woman and start using the women's bathroom at the local mall? 

Better yet, I decide I want to try on something at Victoria's Secret and use the changing rooms? 

If one is born with male or female anatomy and looks in the mirror and sees someone else, that person needs medical help. It would be no different than if I self identified as a giraffe.


----------



## HeartMD

^Exactly. If you have depression or schizophrenia, then you have a disease, and we need to treat it. If you identify as another gender other than your genetic sex then you are courageous and should be celebrated. I suspect that we will find that all of these mental disorders are structural brain defects or chemical ones. We just have treatments for depression and schizophrenia currently.

The whole bathroom thing is a distraction from what the administration is trying to do, and just part of the advancement of their agenda.


----------



## Shaver

^ Potentially, by and large, these delusions are mere perversity. Perversity is all well and good, I am an Englishman and so you may believe me in this, but to demand that one's perversity is recognised as normality is symptomatic of a disasocciative self loathing requiring treatment not indulgence.


----------



## SG_67

It's a truly off thing; as a society we are blamed for not giving resources to the treatment of mental illness and disease, yet being transgendered even to the point of seeking mutilation of ones body is somehow see as normal. 

Worse yet, if someone questions the persons mental state they are viewed, at least by some, as bigoted. 

I remember once when learning about diseases that one way to view illness or disease was see it as a condition of being that is out of the ordinary. 

I'm not sure what % of the human population considers themselves transgendered but I'm willing to be if even those who are afraid of admitting it come out, the total cannot be more than 1%, perhaps even less.


----------



## Shaver

^ My work colleagues consider me to be *ahem* transphobic. To which I retort that believing the cutting off of a chap's cock (and turning it inside out) may be rather a bad idea is not a phobia.


----------



## 16412

Shaver, never heard it that way. Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> ^ My work colleagues consider me to be *ahem* transphobic. To which I retort that believing the cutting off of a chap's cock (and turning it inside out) may be rather a bad idea is not a phobia.


It is rather hard to empathize with anyone who would do that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shaver

In which case, don't you owe your aunt an apology? 



tocqueville said:


> It is rather hard to empathize with anyone who would do that.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tempest

Shaver said:


> ^ My work colleagues consider me to be *ahem* transphobic. To which I retort that believing the cutting off of a chap's cock (and turning it inside out) may be rather a bad idea is not a phobia.


There is an almost perfect article entitled "Transphobia Is Perfectly Natural" by Gavin McInnes that lampoons the insane perversity of "reassignment surgeries" while properly noting that indulging delusions instead of treating them is a rather hateful thing to do (particularly given the myriad of other self-destructive behaviors that tend to accompany such delusions).


----------



## 16412

Tempest said:


> There is an almost perfect article entitled "Transphobia Is Perfectly Natural" by Gavin McInnes that lampoons the insane perversity of "reassignment surgeries" while properly noting that indulging delusions instead of treating them is a rather hateful thing to do (particularly given the myriad of other self-destructive behaviors that tend to accompany such delusions).


What do you think they are going to say?! Doesn't mean they are right no matter how well they make it sound. You are talking about permanent damage. Anyone good with words can make foolishness sound right. This has been going on for thousands of years. You layed out a list of fighting words being one of their slaves to defend the make believe. You shouldn't be a follower. You are supposed to be a thinker. But, instead, what did you say? What they wanted you to say. Followers always prove it. You don't even know how to think the thousands of questions out side their box. History shows a lot of damage.


----------



## SG_67

Tempest said:


> There is an almost perfect article entitled "Transphobia Is Perfectly Natural" by Gavin McInnes that lampoons the insane perversity of "reassignment surgeries" while properly noting that indulging delusions instead of treating them is a rather hateful thing to do (particularly given the myriad of other self-destructive behaviors that tend to accompany such delusions).


Reassignment surgery is nothing more than mutilation and it's practitioners should have their medical licenses revoked.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> So we've reached the point where Islamic radical terrorists are just something we should learn to live with. Because, after all.....


Indeed. The US has a far higher death toll from people being shot by other US citizens than by Islamic, or any other terrorism, yet legislation to try to prevent such deaths has consistently been blocked. So, what difference does that make?


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> Indeed. The US has a far higher death toll from people being shot by other US citizens than by Islamic, or any other terrorism, yet legislation to try to prevent such deaths has consistently been blocked.


Please exclude suicides and criminals killed while committing crimes from the numbers. I see no reason to "prevent such deaths".


----------



## jfo2010

Chouan said:


> Indeed. The US has a far higher death toll from people being shot by other US citizens than by Islamic, or any other terrorism, yet legislation to try to prevent such deaths has consistently been blocked. So, what difference does that make?


https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/7/17/how-the-uk-covers-up-murder-stats/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drlivingston

I have no problem with a person wanting re-assignment surgery. If a woman wants to have an addadicktomy, so be it.


----------



## tocqueville

jfo2010 said:


> https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/7/17/how-the-uk-covers-up-murder-stats/
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Far from being a credible source. The very title of the website is a lie.


----------



## SG_67

^ I'll admit to not having read the article, but aren't ad hominem attacks something one learns about in PHI 102? 

You're not doing right by your namesake.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> ^ I'll admit to not having read the article, but aren't ad hominem attacks something one learns about in PHI 102?
> 
> You're not doing right by your namesake.


My namesake had no patience for extremism. And would you have me engage seriously with an article published by a terrorist organization? Or by an organization that has no interest in truth or anyone's wellbeing?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

^ the NRA is a terrorist organization? Now who's being an extremist? 

It is possible to disagree with someone without having to disparage them. Unless of course one is out of ideas and insults and attscks are all that is left in the quiver.


----------



## jfo2010

I was just informing the UK resident who questioned US policies that his own country has its own issues that may not be transparent through political reports. Just look at what's happening now after Brexit which was brought on by half truths, magical thinking and outright lies.

I am not a Hillary supporter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> ^ the NRA is a terrorist organization? Now who's being an extremist?
> 
> It is possible to disagree with someone without having to disparage them. Unless of course one is out of ideas and insults and attscks are all that is left in the quiver.


Read the NrA's Sandy Hook report.

I insult an organization. I admit it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

I'm not an NRA member and frankly don't really care about it. 

My contention is with you calling an organization "terrorists" while in the same breath voicing discontent and alarm about extremist language and behavior. 

So the NRA are terrorists?


----------



## Dmontez

SG_67 said:


> Unless of course one is out of ideas and insults and attscks are all that is left in the quiver.


precisely.


----------



## Tempest

tocqueville said:


> Far from being a credible source. The very title of the website is a lie.


I'm very curious to hear why. I assume you'll be stating that the right to a choice of another Christian denomination was chronologically first for the armed settlers, colonists, etc.?
I'm left thinking that anyone thinking the tepid NRA is extremist or "terrorist" would have really, really been against any of these founders. Note that at least 1% of the US population, man, woman, and child, are members in this organization. Of course the number of guns owned is about ten times as many.


tocqueville said:


> Read the NrA's Sandy Hook report.


Well, I'm not aware of Adam Lanza, or really any mass shooter, being an NRA member but please supply a link to make sure we are talking about the same thing.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> I think this pretty much sums up the Obama presidency:





SG_67 said:


> Unless of course one is out of ideas and insults and attacks are all that is left in the quiver.


Sure. Whatever you say.


----------



## SG_67

^ Sorry...not the same. Pointing out a timeline between commenting on the beheading of an American citizen for all the world to see and teeing off says something about the seriousness of this President.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> ^ Sorry...not the same. Pointing out a timeline between commenting on the beheading of an American citizen for all the world to see and teeing off says something about the seriousness of this President.


No, it doesn't. It just reflects your malevolence and irrationality re: Obama. You're grasping at anything.


----------



## SG_67

How is it malevolent? I showed that with evil intent?

I showed a graphic encapsulating the timeline of a particular event. I'm sorry you don't like the narrative and I'm sorry that it does not favor your particular point of view of this President. 

The very fact that you accuse me of malevolence betrays your thoughts. You know it was wrong and in the kindest light possible insensitive. You just don't like the way it is so succinctly summarized.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> How is it malevolent? I showed that with evil intent?
> 
> I showed a graphic encapsulating the timeline of a particular event. I'm sorry you don't like the narrative and I'm sorry that it does not favor your particular point of view of this President.
> 
> The very fact that you accuse me of malevolence betrays your thoughts. You know it was wrong and in the kindest light possible insensitive. You just don't like the way it is so succinctly summarized.


It isn't wrong, it isn't anything. It's a timeline. So what? I don't think it it means anything. There's no narrative other than what's in your head.

Look, you want to argue that his middle east policy has failed? That's fair. Get in line. Want to quarrel about the ACA? Also fair. You want to suggest that he's what? Not serious? Then you're not serious.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> It isn't wrong, it isn't anything. It's a timeline. So what? I don't think it it means anything. There's no narrative other than what's in your head.
> 
> Look, you want to argue that his middle east policy has failed? That's fair. Get in line. Want to quarrel about the ACA? Also fair. You want to suggest that he's what? Not serious? Then you're not serious.


Yes, it is a timeline. As an American you don't see anything odd about the President discussing the public beheading of an American citizen by a terrorist organization, and not just a behaving but one done in a most gruesome manner, and then within minutes teeing off?

As for the ACA, I won't waste my breath. Instead, I'll just watch it wither and it will prove the point for me. Already UHC has pulled out of the exchanges in Illinois and California. Other insurance companies are lining up to ask the government if they can raise rates as people are not signing up in the numbers that were once thought.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> Yes, it is a timeline. As an American you don't see anything odd about the President discussing the public beheading of an American citizen by a terrorist organization, and not just a behaving but one done in a most gruesome manner, and then within minutes teeing off?


No, I don't. The fact that you read so much into it is, as I said, a reflection of your own ill-will and irrationality. For although you accuse him of not being serious, in this same forum you have repeatedly belittled his very serious moments for being phony. He's either lowering himself by being un-presidential, or, when he's being presidential, he's arrogant, and you fault him for using big words or tackling big subjects. If he made a show of being deeply concerned with the fate of someone who's suffered, you call him a fraud. If he makes no show, you say he's not serious. I'm sure, for example, you think little of his response the Charleston massacre. Because, you say, he's not serious.

For all you know Obama knew about the guy getting killed for a while. For all you know he'd already ordered an airstrike. For all you know...actually, you know very little, but you are supremely content to read into Obama whatever bad things you wish to read, for if he uses his right hand or his left, you see proof of his illegitimacy. And at the root of your animus...?


----------



## Shaver

Anyone remember Obama at Columbia? :devil:


----------



## Peak and Pine

tocqueville said:


> No, I don't. The fact that you read so much into it is, as I said, a reflection of your own ill-will and irrationality. For although you accuse him of not being serious, in this same forum you have repeatedly belittled his very serious moments for being phony. He's either lowering himself by being un-presidential, or, when he's being presidential, he's arrogant, and you fault him for using big words or tackling big subjects. If he made a show of being deeply concerned with the fate of someone who's suffered, you call him a fraud. If he makes no show, you say he's not serious. I'm sure, for example, you think little of his response the Charleston massacre. Because, you say, he's not serious.
> 
> For all you know Obama knew about the guy getting killed for a while. For all you know he'd already ordered an airstrike. For all you know...actually, you know very little, but you are supremely content to read into Obama whatever bad things you wish to read, for if he uses his right hand or his left, you see proof of his illegitimacy. And at the root of your animus...?


I read it twice. So damn good.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> No, I don't. The fact that you read so much into it is, as I said, a reflection of your own ill-will and irrationality. For although you accuse him of not being serious, in this same forum you have repeatedly belittled his very serious moments for being phony. He's either lowering himself by being un-presidential, or, when he's being presidential, he's arrogant, and you fault him for using big words or tackling big subjects. If he made a show of being deeply concerned with the fate of someone who's suffered, you call him a fraud. If he makes no show, you say he's not serious. I'm sure, for example, you think little of his response the Charleston massacre. Because, you say, he's not serious.
> 
> For all you know Obama knew about the guy getting killed for a while. For all you know he'd already ordered an airstrike. For all you know...actually, you know very little, but you are supremely content to read into Obama whatever bad things you wish to read, for if he uses his right hand or his left, you see proof of his illegitimacy. And at the root of your animus...?


He sees the world the way he wants to see it. He was animated and passionate about the Charleston shooting as he should have been. Yet, he's dismissive of radical Islam. He doesn't even call it that for fear of offending all Muslims yet he has no trouble calling something racially motivated and bigoted, as Charleston certainly was. He seems to have no trouble speaking in black and white terms, pardon the pun, about some matters yet not on others.

He was dismissive of ISIS calling them "JV" yet he is not so dismissive of issues in this country related to race. It's the laboratory from which he came. He has a particular point of view and anything that does not fit into that viewpoint is dismissed as either irrelevant or, and he does this often, just political.

I don't claim to read his mind. Of course, as we now know he didn't order an air strike because we had no idea of where they were. He may have known about it in advance but who cares? It's how he behaved at a time the nation was in shock and felt horror. Instead of being a leader and at least showing some measure of seriousness he teed off. His instinct is to just carry on as though nothing is unusual. He feels empathy when it's something meaningful to him. A trait shared by many narcissists by the way.

What's worse is that, like you have, any criticism of him has to be ascribed to hostility, malice and of course racism (although to your credit you have avoided this).


----------



## Chouan

Peak and Pine said:


> I read it twice. So damn good.


As did I; very well written, and very well said.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> He sees the world the way he wants to see it.


Does he? Where do you get your insight from?



SG_67 said:


> He was animated and passionate about the Charleston shooting as he should have been.


So?



SG_67 said:


> Yet, he's dismissive of radical Islam.


Is he? Or did he simply not use that expression when you, and others wanted him to?



SG_67 said:


> He doesn't even call it that for fear of offending all Muslims


Really? Or is that merely your opinion?



SG_67 said:


> yet he has no trouble calling something racially motivated and bigoted, as Charleston certainly was.


So?



SG_67 said:


> He seems to have no trouble speaking in black and white terms, pardon the pun, about some matters yet not on others.


Like what?



SG_67 said:


> He was dismissive of ISIS calling them "JV" yet he is not so dismissive of issues in this country related to race.


Is he? Any evidence to support that assertion?



SG_67 said:


> It's the laboratory from which he came.


Which laboratory is that?



SG_67 said:


> He has a particular point of view and anything that does not fit into that viewpoint is dismissed as either irrelevant or, and he does this often, just political.


Not that you're reading his mind of course!



SG_67 said:


> I don't claim to read his mind.


So where did your previous comment come from?



SG_67 said:


> Of course, as we now know he didn't order an air strike because we had no idea of where they were. He may have known about it in advance but who cares? It's how he behaved at a time the nation was in shock and felt horror.


Which was what? Churchill received dreadful news of terrible events, then went off and drank another bottle of champagne. His normal behaviour in times of crisis were part of what made him a great leader.



SG_67 said:


> Instead of being a leader and at least showing some measure of seriousness he teed off.


See above.



SG_67 said:


> His instinct is to just carry on as though nothing is unusual.


See above.



SG_67 said:


> He feels empathy when it's something meaningful to him.


As do most of us. However, care to let us know where you got that insightful knowledge from? You're not being a mind reader are you?



SG_67 said:


> A trait shared by many narcissists by the way.


and?



SG_67 said:


> What's worse is that, like you have, any criticism of him has to be ascribed to hostility, malice and of course racism (although to your credit you have avoided this).


Most of the criticism of him is through simple hostility. People don't like him, or what he stands for, so they'll criticise him no matter what he does. we get the same in the UK about Corbyn.


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> People don't like him, or what he stands for, so they'll criticise him no matter what he does.


So in your book, a person that can't get people to like him or what he stands for can somehow still be a good leader? Please explain. 
BTW, I totally give credit to Obama for not being a pushover to Israel, so the devil gets his due from me.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> He sees the world the way he wants to see it. He was animated and passionate about the Charleston shooting as he should have been. Yet, he's dismissive of radical Islam. He doesn't even call it that for fear of offending all Muslims yet he has no trouble calling something racially motivated and bigoted, as Charleston certainly was. He seems to have no trouble speaking in black and white terms, pardon the pun, about some matters yet not on others.
> 
> He was dismissive of ISIS calling them "JV" yet he is not so dismissive of issues in this country related to race. It's the laboratory from which he came. He has a particular point of view and anything that does not fit into that viewpoint is dismissed as either irrelevant or, and he does this often, just political.
> 
> I don't claim to read his mind. Of course, as we now know he didn't order an air strike because we had no idea of where they were. He may have known about it in advance but who cares? It's how he behaved at a time the nation was in shock and felt horror. Instead of being a leader and at least showing some measure of seriousness he teed off. His instinct is to just carry on as though nothing is unusual. He feels empathy when it's something meaningful to him. A trait shared by many narcissists by the way.
> 
> What's worse is that, like you have, any criticism of him has to be ascribed to hostility, malice and of course racism (although to your credit you have avoided this).


There is a difference between arguing that he pays insufficient attention to Islamic terrorism and arguing that he's "not serious" and deriding him ad hominem for being a all sorts of bad things. His attention to Charleston victims is not a bad thing; his attention to racism and extremism at home is not a bad thing. POTUS's job is about the big picture, and in his big picture he worries about things that threaten the fabric of our society. I would think less of him if he didn't care as much about Charleston. Can you really watch his Charleston speech and find fault with the man, or belittle him? His response to Trump after Orlando was, I think, entirely in keeping with his sense of his obligations as POTUS: Seeing to the well-being and integration of America's Muslim community matters, as all terrorism experts can attest. Ostracizing minorities leads to bad results.

And it so happens that perhaps he can chew gum and walk at the same time. You and many on the Right are fond of the talking point that he's not serious about Islamic radicalism. I can't help but wonder what signs or gestures he would have to make in order to convince you that he's serious. What would it take? Does he need to invade and occupy another country? Would that be enough? If a high death toll would sway you, Obama's killed thousands in the name of fighting Islamic terrorism. Thousands. See here, for example: (https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/ )And he's committed thousands of men and billions of dollars to the fight, which is going on on multiple fronts all over the globe. There's Iraq, of course ( ), but you'll find US troops all over the globe, from the Sahel to the Philippines, all fighting Islamist militants.

Terrorist groups' aim is to provoke actions and get attention. Obama seems to think that it's in the US' interest to try to keep chill while quietly killing bad guys. One can debate the merits of his strategy, but it's absurd to argue he doesn't care. Or, he's also made clear that he'd rather disinvest from the Middle East and no longer let whatever craziness is going on there drag us into conflicts. Also, debatable, but the strategy is not casual.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> There is a difference between arguing that he pays insufficient attention to Islamic terrorism and arguing that he's "not serious" and deriding him ad hominem for being a all sorts of bad things. His attention to Charleston victims is not a bad thing; his attention to racism and extremism at home is not a bad thing. POTUS's job is about the big picture, and in his big picture he worries about things that threaten the fabric of our society. I would think less of him if he didn't care as much about Charleston. Can you really watch his Charleston speech and find fault with the man, or belittle him? His response to Trump after Orlando was, I think, entirely in keeping with his sense of his obligations as POTUS: Seeing to the well-being and integration of America's Muslim community matters, as all terrorism experts can attest. Ostracizing minorities leads to bad results.
> 
> And it so happens that perhaps he can chew gum and walk at the same time. You and many on the Right are fond of the talking point that he's not serious about Islamic radicalism. I can't help but wonder what signs or gestures he would have to make in order to convince you that he's serious. What would it take? Does he need to invade and occupy another country? Would that be enough? If a high death toll would sway you, Obama's killed thousands in the name of fighting Islamic terrorism. Thousands. See here, for example: (https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/ )And he's committed thousands of men and billions of dollars to the fight, which is going on on multiple fronts all over the globe. There's Iraq, of course ( ), but you'll find US troops all over the globe, from the Sahel to the Philippines, all fighting Islamist militants.
> 
> Terrorist groups' aim is to provoke actions and get attention. Obama seems to think that it's in the US' interest to try to keep chill while quietly killing bad guys. One can debate the merits of his strategy, but it's absurd to argue he doesn't care. Or, he's also made clear that he'd rather disinvest from the Middle East and no longer let whatever craziness is going on there drag us into conflicts. Also, debatable, but the strategy is not casual.


A few months ago this same Presidents stated publically that our odds of being killed in a bathtub accident were greater than dying in a terrorist attack. Little consolation of course to those whose family members have been killed by terrorists, but can you imagine if he had said in the aftermath of Orlando or Charleston?

I'll let you determine for yourself where his priorities lie.


----------



## drlivingston

Just tolerate the guy for another six months. Then we will have another Pandora's box to open and complain about.


----------



## Dmontez

drlivingston said:


> Just tolerate the guy for another six months. Then we will have another Pandora's box to open and complain about.


true dat.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> A few months ago this same Presidents stated publically that our odds of being killed in a bathtub accident were greater than dying in a terrorist attack. Little consolation of course to those whose family members have been killed by terrorists, but can you imagine if he had said in the aftermath of Orlando or Charleston?
> 
> I'll let you determine for yourself where his priorities lie.


But which is the greater threat, really?

Anyway, you're caught in a tautology. Obama doesn't take Islamic radicalism seriously. Your proof? Obama doesn't take radicalism seriously. But how do you know? Well, because Obama doesn't take it seriously. And you believe that because Obama doesn't take it seriously. And your evidence of that is that Obama doesn't take it seriously.

I figure three things: either there is some metric according to which you gauge seriousness, and if he were to do XYZ you'd give him your seal of approval...or really for you it's just about bombast and rhetoric. You'd be happy either if he did XYZ or if he said XYZ. What, precisely are those?

Or, are you just making crap up because you hate the guy and wish to find fault?

I frankly, think your tautology laughable given the resources that Obama has put against fighting terrorism. Billions of dollars and thousands of men and women who do nothing but. Is there some magic number of money spent or perhaps people killed that would meet your requirements? Must he invade and occupy a country? He's only killed thousands...must he kill tens of thousands? Is this about blood lust?

Or, is this all about bombast? Do you want him to scream and howl? Indulge in demagoguery? Given your penchant for Trump, I think the latter. Empty bombast satisfies a mob like nothing else.

Anyway, I don't believe you when you argue that this issue of "not being serious about Islamic radicalism" is the reason for your antipathy. Disagreeing with a policy issue, even a major one, need not lead to contempt for the man.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> But which is the greater threat, really?
> 
> Anyway, you're caught in a tautology. Obama doesn't take Islamic radicalism seriously. Your proof? Obama doesn't take radicalism seriously. But how do you know? Well, because Obama doesn't take it seriously. And you believe that because Obama doesn't take it seriously. And your evidence of that is that Obama doesn't take it seriously.
> 
> I figure three things: either there is some metric according to which you gauge seriousness, and if he were to do XYZ you'd give him your seal of approval...or really for you it's just about bombast and rhetoric. You'd be happy either if he did XYZ or if he said XYZ. What, precisely are those?
> 
> Or, are you just making crap up because you hate the guy and wish to find fault?
> 
> I frankly, think your tautology laughable given the resources that Obama has put against fighting terrorism. Billions of dollars and thousands of men and women who do nothing but. Is there some magic number of money spent or perhaps people killed that would meet your requirements? Must he invade and occupy a country? He's only killed thousands...must he kill tens of thousands? Is this about blood lust?
> 
> Or, is this all about bombast? Do you want him to scream and howl? Indulge in demagoguery? Given your penchant for Trump, I think the latter. Empty bombast satisfies a mob like nothing else.
> 
> Anyway, I don't believe you when you argue that this issue of "not being serious about Islamic radicalism" is the reason for your antipathy. Disagreeing with a policy issue, even a major one, need not lead to contempt for the man.


Please, your use of straw man arguments like nothing else I've seen. "must he kill tens of thousands?" Where have I said anything about body count.

His public demeanor and statements speak volumes. Why would he compare the kill ratio of bath tubs to that of terrorists? I'm sure the same holds true for church goers killed by racists. How about this statistic; more people died of the flu last year than were killed in school shootings.

How about that for a presidential proclamation? "My fellow American's, please keep in mid as we consider the latest massacre of school children, odds are still greater of dying of the flu this year."

Every foreign policy instinct he has had has been wrong. He came into office feeling that America had overstayed it's welcome on the world stage. That backing off would necessarily calm the world down. Obviously that hasn't worked.

When he became president, BHO left the world of ideas and idle debate to a position where results matter. Of course he seems to be the last one to understand that. He has deliberately downplayed the threat of terrorism and though he's been responsible for some really impressive drone strikes, there has really not been a weakening of terrorist resolve.


----------



## Tempest

Speaking only for myself, I would like it more if our president showed higher disdain for outside enemies than to law-abiding citizens. I see the following messages from him, ad neauseum:
1. The NRA is evil, you gun owners need to surrender your rights, and we're restricting you because of some lunatic.
2. Hey, Islam is generally good and don't let a few bad apples cause us to h8! Fight enemy ideology with love and tolerance! 
I have a profound problem reconciling innocent American citizens being persecuted like criminals while advocating appeasement and inclusion for alien enemy forces.


----------



## Chouan

SG_67 said:


> Every foreign policy instinct he has had has been wrong. He came into office feeling that America had overstayed it's welcome on the world stage. That backing off would necessarily calm the world down. Obviously that hasn't worked.


Did he? Really, you seem to have a very profound insight into his thought processes.



SG_67 said:


> When he became president, BHO left the world of ideas and idle debate to a position where results matter.


Idle debate? Not that you're prejudiced in any way!



SG_67 said:


> Of course he seems to be the last one to understand that.


Indeed? Evidence for that assertion?



SG_67 said:


> He has deliberately downplayed the threat of terrorism and though he's been responsible for some really impressive drone strikes, there has really not been a weakening of terrorist resolve.


And GWB was so much more effective in weakening terrorist resolve! Could it not be that weakening terrorist resolve is not achievable in the short term?


----------



## SG_67

Not necessarily the POTUS words, but from his own SOS (and thank God he's just that and didn't get elected):

https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/politics/john-kerry-charlie-hebdo-rationale/index.html

This pretty captures the essence of this administration's view of terrorism; that somehow our actions and behavior give rise to this and one way to combat it is to stop the provocation.

The irony of course is that for an administration that claims the views of other nations are as important, it is an inherently US-centric view. That somehow we are the impetus and the reason for being of Islamic terrorism.

Of course, to admit otherwise would open the door to other explanations, such as the role of religion and culture. Of course, this runs counter to the narrative.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> Please, your use of straw man arguments like nothing else I've seen. "must he kill tens of thousands?" Where have I said anything about body count.
> 
> His public demeanor and statements speak volumes. Why would he compare the kill ratio of bath tubs to that of terrorists? I'm sure the same holds true for church goers killed by racists. How about this statistic; more people died of the flu last year than were killed in school shootings.
> 
> How about that for a presidential proclamation? "My fellow American's, please keep in mid as we consider the latest massacre of school children, odds are still greater of dying of the flu this year."
> 
> Every foreign policy instinct he has had has been wrong. He came into office feeling that America had overstayed it's welcome on the world stage. That backing off would necessarily calm the world down. Obviously that hasn't worked.
> 
> When he became president, BHO left the world of ideas and idle debate to a position where results matter. Of course he seems to be the last one to understand that. He has deliberately downplayed the threat of terrorism and though he's been responsible for some really impressive drone strikes, there has really not been a weakening of terrorist resolve.


So what you want from him is a different public demeanor and public statements? That's it? That's what counts for you? Never mind the substance, so long as someone says the right things and, I guess, walks around being dour and sad about that one thing that you think he needs to be dour and sad about.


----------



## tocqueville

And no, I'm not "straw manning" you, SG. I'm merely trying to get my head around your tautologies and your insistence that someone is not doing enough about something, evidence to the contrary, and that this alleged failing is the root of your antipathy.

I have a great deal of respect for you; you're worth debating with precisely because you can and do think. On this issue, you can be pushed.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> And no, I'm not "straw manning" you, SG. I'm merely trying to get my head around your tautologies and your insistence that someone is not doing enough about something, evidence to the contrary, and that this alleged failing is the root of your antipathy.
> 
> I have a great deal of respect for you; you're worth debating with precisely because you can and do think. On this issue, you can be pushed.


I have antipathy for him because thus far he's been a feckless leader. He sold the American public a bill of goods and then went back on all of his empty promises.

He promised transparency and his signature achievement, the ACA, was drawn up and passed in back rooms. Meanwhile, one of its architects pretty much said that the American people are stupid and I can only assume that this same thinking permeated discussions on its passage. Of course now we see that it's not all it's cracked up to be.

GDP growth has been abysmal. Cash for clunkers and all manner of give aways have not yielded anything. He tried his hand at being a VC and his $600 million investment went belly up.

In foreign policy he's drawn ridiculous red lines and when crossed, has done nothing about it. He's alienated middle eastern allies and for the first time in 50 years, has allowed the Russians to become players in the Middle East.

After 4 of his employees were killed by terrorists serving him and their country, he and his minions were on TV almost immediately blaming an Internet video, a claim that had been utterly refuted by now.

One of his foreign policy advisers is on record as saying the administration basically fed a bunch of crap to the press to sell the Iran deal.

In terrorism he's allowed the growth of a JV squad into a full blown major league franchise. His idea of standing united with an ally after a horrific terrorist attack is to dispatch his SOS with James Taylor in tow to sing a song.

I could go on and on but your arguments in support of him are just as empty.

So tell me what he has done other than execute a ton of drone strikes. Besides the fatally flawed ACA what has he achieved?


----------



## Tempest

I may have already stated that, besides the healthcare fiasco and always talking smack about guns, my main gripe is that BO doubled down on all the idiocy of his predecessor, which is the exact opposite of what his constituency was hoping for him to do.
This is an oldie but a goody showing how he is a disappointment to both sides.


----------



## SG_67

Here's what happens when people become career politicians and haven't a clue as to how the real world works:

Obamacare killing jobs in New York area, executives tell Federal Reserve survey https://www.cnbc.com/id/103874924
https://www.cnbc.com/id/103874924


----------



## Hockey Tom

> "The vast majority of respondents in both surveys [of manufacturing and service company executives] said they were not changing the proportion of part-time workers or the amount of work outsourced to other firms,"


The most telling line in the article, IMO, highlighting that these companies are not simply shuffling the labor pool to skirt the laws (as one might expect).


----------



## Tempest

If they are cutting employees, but not changing the proportion of partt-timers or outsource work, that would imply that those are being proportionally cut as well. Thanks Obama!


----------



## Dcr5468

He should be in Louisiana right now. We have had devastating, crippling floods that have left tens of thousands homeless. Most without flood insurance as they were outside of 100 year floodplain. Media seems more concerned with latest political news while a true tragedy unfolds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eagle2250

^^
For the past several days Scott Pelly on the CBS Evening News has been covering the Louisiana flooding and the California wildfires as his lead stories. The coverage of the flooding has shown considerable involvement of the National Guard in the ongoing response, but I have not heard any mention of FEMA in the news coverage. It is not surprising that the President has not shown up. He is not one to lead from the front, but rather from behind...not the type of leadership we need in a crisis, for sure.


----------



## SG_67

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> For the past several days Scott Pelly on the CBS Evening News has been covering the Louisiana flooding and the California wildfires as his lead stories. The coverage of the flooding has shown considerable involvement of the National Guard in the ongoing response, but I have not heard any mention of FEMA in the news coverage. It is not surprising that the President has not shown up. He is not one to lead from the front, but rather from behind...not the type of leadership we need in a crisis, for sure.


Remember, this is a guy who teed off 5 minutes after commenting on the public beheading of an American citizen by a terrorist group. How can you expect that he'd be anymore worked up because of a little rain.


----------



## Dcr5468

Perhaps after the back 9


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67

First this:

"The White House and the State Department both denied on Wednesday that the money was part of a quid pro quo arrangement to win the prisoners' freedom."

And now this:

US says $400M to Iran was contingent on release of prisoners
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/20...iran-was-contingent-on-release-prisoners.html

But hey, there are more important things to talk about, like Trump's "tone".


----------



## Balfour




----------

