The Pulse of the Nation

[nicky10013]

No you didn't. Because it would force you to commit to a real position. Can't have that.

Sure I did. I guess you chose to be willfully ignorant, that way when the denial stage comes it's a whole lot easier to deal with.

Almost..he said he was too busy killing the locals in Afghanistan. But wait....that was wrong too...right?

Right, but still not winnable.

Bullpuckey....go back and read the documents. They are clear as to purpose and intention, as reinforced in 2002 for a vote to invade by the US Congress.

So after so many American lives lost, the US would welcome back an authoritarian dictator not named Saddam Hussein?

Edited September 5, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

You're talking to an engineer with an MBA. The whole MBA was a total joke, basically trivial common sense stuff, after learning what I did in my engineering undergrad. I couldn't believe how much of a breeze it was or that some people actually spent their whole 4 years learning such basic stuff.

How many engineers do you know with MBAs?

[Bonam]

How many engineers do you know with MBAs?

Like half my friends from university? Point is it wasn't hard.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're talking to an engineer with an MBA. The whole MBA was a total joke, basically trivial common sense stuff, after learning what I did in my engineering undergrad. I couldn't believe how much of a breeze it was or that some people actually spent their whole 4 years learning such basic stuff.

Ain't that the truth....such pretenders don't know what "hard" is. Bull majors...yuch!

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure I did. I guess you chose to be willfully ignorant, that way when the denial stage comes it's a whole lot easier to deal with.

Then type it...if it were possible, would you advocate for the return of Saddam and his ruthless party rule of Iraq? If so, then you can still count the bodies...makes no difference.

Right, but still not winnable.

So you are saying it is OK to slaughter the locals in Afghanistan, but not Iraq?

So after so many American lives lost, the US would welcome back an authoritarian dictator not named Saddam Hussein?

Maybe....depends on whose team he was on. America lost that many people in single battles during WW2, and Stalin was an Ally. Kids!

[bloodyminded]

What Fox offers, and what has been missing in the political landscape is an effective voice in opposition to the growth of government.

FOX does not express opposition to big goverment. Exactly like the other major news organs, FOX has been entirely uncritical (in fact, sedulously silent) on Big government initiatives, such as the bi-partisan warrantless domestic spying program. It is reflexivly supportive of any military engagement--a reflexivity that is by definition support for big government. Also, they (like CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS) promoted the Iraq war by allowing disproportionate airtime to "experts," like ex-military officers, who met with officials at the Pentagon in order to learn the proper talking points to sell the war. The government called them "message force multipliers"; they were then explicitly presented on the news networks--FOX most of all--as "independent experts."

What you call "opposition to big government" is actually outright propaganda for the government. Explicit deception by the "anti-government" network, in concert with the other networks, to sell an explciitly Big-Government foreign policy initiative.

[bush_cheney2004]

...What you call "opposition to big government" is actually outright propaganda for the government. Explicit deception by the "anti-government" network, in concert with the other networks, to sell an explciitly Big-Government foreign policy initiative.

.,..which is exactly the role for government articulated in the US Constitution, including border security and immigration policy. Nothing in there about health care or recycling milk jugs.

[bloodyminded]

.,..which is exactly the role for government articulated in the US Constitution, including border security and immigration policy. Nothing in there about health care or recycling milk jugs.

How "exactly" does the Constitution deem that the role of government is to deceive the public through the news media?

Because that's "exactly" what your "exactly" was in response to.

Your last sentence of course has nothing to do with anything I said, in the way that your opinions in general have nothing to do with sanity.

[bush_cheney2004]

How "exactly" does the Constitution deem that the role of government is to deceive the public through the news media?

"Remember the Maine!"

Because that's "exactly" what your "exactly" was in response to.

...zactly!

Your last sentence of course has nothing to do with anything I said, in the way that your opinions in general have nothing to do with sanity.

It's not all about you.....never was.

[nicky10013]

Like half my friends from university? Point is it wasn't hard.

Hahahahah right. Forgive me if I don't believe you.

[nicky10013]

Then type it...if it were possible, would you advocate for the return of Saddam and his ruthless party rule of Iraq? If so, then you can still count the bodies...makes no difference.

No, I wouldn't, but killing a million Iraqis and having yet another bloodthirsty dictator coming to power negates the one thing the US did in Iraq. So, what's the difference?

So you are saying it is OK to slaughter the locals in Afghanistan, but not Iraq?

Nope, I'm saying the true enemy we were supposedly fighting was in Afghanistan. The war is still being lost, but there was at least a reason to be in Afghanistan. No one can claim that there was a real reason for Iraq. Even with all your documents, the US government went through a whole whack of reasons.

Maybe....depends on whose team he was on. America lost that many people in single battles during WW2, and Stalin was an Ally. Kids!

Oh, I know. I can pretty much guarantee my education regarding history is better than yours. My point is if the US was fighting to remove a dictator and a dictator ends up coming to power, isn't that a waste of all those military deaths?

[Pliny]

It's not losing power due to entitlements.

The US or the US government. It seems to be concentrating on centralizing power domestically. Obama's foreign policy is to be Mr. Niceguy and get in line with Europe - a somewhat muddled socialist state.

The decline of the US is relative to the rise of China and India. With greater populations, it's just a matter of time before each country catches up.

Relative in what respect? You mean that production in China and India has buoyed their economies? They've learned what competition is? Meanwhile, Obama is busy redistributing the wealth (production).

If there's any domestic reason, it's actually the thing tea partiers want to go back to to fix the constitution. The US constitution makes it nearly impossible for the US system to reinvigorate itself. Checks and balances makes it extremely hard for congress to pass legislation.

Those checks and balances were the reason that the States became the most productive nation in the world. They tended to keep government off the backs of the people.

Checks and balances are the incentive to further bureaucratisation. Example: the US has 21 intelligence agencies.

Which is it checks and balances make it hard to pass legislation or easy to pass legislation?

A country with a parliament like Canada, can get things done quicker. Though government here is in scope bigger than it is in the US, the bureaucracies that run the social programmes we love are smaller and more efficient than the ones that operate in the US. In short, the US system of entitlements do need reform (they don't need to be discarded) but it's the system itself that's preventing it. It took over a year to get healthcare done and it was by no means a meaningful reform. Social security has almost 0 chance of getting done.

Social security became part of the landscape in the 1930's under FDR. Entitlements were never designed to be part of the federal governemnt's mandate.

Of course the left has their spin. My only point was that besides MSNBC, which is a backwater channel no one watches, there is no liberal main stream media. Just because channels like CNN give time to the other side doesn't mean that their biased.

What lib-left? Where is the mythical left you speak of?

I laugh at this denial every time I hear it. I think it is because socialists consider themselves centrists they don't see any left wing bias. This way they can present anything right wing as extremist.

Does the CBC provide a fair and balanced point of view? In your view, of course.

Then where is it coming from? It's coming from people from the extreme right of the US political spectrum, people like Palin's medium is Fox News. Did it originate at Fox? No, I don't think one could argue that. However, it's being beamed out to ignorant suckers looking for anything to plug their anger into. That's dangerous.

The Muslim concept comes from name association more than likely....Barack Hussein Obama doesn't sound like it's from the Bible. Anyone who watches Fox news knows Obama isn't Muslim. His association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was covered quite extensively on Fox.

As for tax cuts, let's not confuse the spin with tax credits - a form of wealth redistribution.

It is easy to confuse socialists regarding Economics. Tax credits are not the same as tax cuts calling them tax cuts is liberal spin. Let's get that straight.

You ignored these points in my last response to your post.

Unlike the tea partiers, who, if you truly listen to them have no answer, I don't have one.

They do have an answer....get Governemnt to sit down, relax, have a hot cup of shut the f**k up and just watch.

Oh...I bet you have tons of answers but we would have to go to the worldwide socialists wesite to find them or the Socialists International. This is simply not the forum for that kind of left wing critical thinking. Wha...wha...wha.

[Pliny]

I'm sorry, but you're reaching and that just doesn't translate. Try explaining economics to an engineer. IT doesn't go over well most times. Trust me, I know.

If you were doing the explaining that would be understandable.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, I wouldn't, but killing a million Iraqis and having yet another bloodthirsty dictator coming to power negates the one thing the US did in Iraq. So, what's the difference?

More confused thoughts, as you said the US did nothing in Iraq. Have you changed your mind? Iraq does not have a dictator today.

Nope, I'm saying the true enemy we were supposedly fighting was in Afghanistan. The war is still being lost, but there was at least a reason to be in Afghanistan. No one can claim that there was a real reason for Iraq. Even with all your documents, the US government went through a whole whack of reasons.

America can fight more than one war at a time.....and had engaged Iraq directly long before Afghanistan. Canada didn't commit all its chips to Afghanistan either. The real reason for Iraq is plain to see....it's not complicated. Two other PMs agreed (UK / AUS).

Oh, I know. I can pretty much guarantee my education regarding history is better than yours. My point is if the US was fighting to remove a dictator and a dictator ends up coming to power, isn't that a waste of all those military deaths?

No...your understanding of history is severely lacking if that is all you have learned. You can't guarantee anything of the sort.

[bloodyminded]

I laugh at this denial every time I hear it. I think it is because socialists consider themselves centrists they don't see any left wing bias. This way they can present anything right wing as extremist.

Yes, you've offered this hypothesis before. The problem is that, first, you take it as self-evident that the "left wing bias" is so obviously true that you feel no need to look deeply into the matter, much less provide any evidence for your claims; and you take it for granted that your unfailing objectivity proves you couldn't be making the same sort of error you promiscuously attribute to others.

The Muslim concept comes from name association more than likely....Barack Hussein Obama doesn't sound like it's from the Bible. Anyone who watches Fox news knows Obama isn't Muslim.

So the 30% of Republicans who believe him to be a Muslim are the ones who don't watch FOX?

[bush_cheney2004]

So the 30% of Republicans who believe him to be a Muslim are the ones who don't watch FOX?

...or 10% of Democrats? LOL!

[nicky10013]

The US or the US government. It seems to be concentrating on centralizing power domestically. Obama's foreign policy is to be Mr. Niceguy and get in line with Europe - a somewhat muddled socialist state.

Hahaha both of these statements are false.

Relative in what respect? You mean that production in China and India has buoyed their economies? They've learned what competition is? Meanwhile, Obama is busy redistributing the wealth (production).

You say "they've learned what competition is" as if it's a bad thing. They sure have, and they're growing incredibly rapidly.

As for redistributing the wealth, cutting taxes to me doesn't seem to fit that pattern.

Those checks and balances were the reason that the States became the most productive nation in the world. They tended to keep government off the backs of the people.

No they didn't, it was WW2. Which, funny enough, was all driven by government spending.

Which is it checks and balances make it hard to pass legislation or easy to pass legislation?

Harder. Harder to legislate leads to further bureaucratisation.

I laugh at this denial every time I hear it. I think it is because socialists consider themselves centrists they don't see any left wing bias. This way they can present anything right wing as extremist.

Does the CBC provide a fair and balanced point of view? In your view, of course.

Well, when you're so far to the rihgt everything has a left wing bias, it's a pretty good indication you're an extremist right winger.

The Muslim concept comes from name association more than likely....Barack Hussein Obama doesn't sound like it's from the Bible. Anyone who watches Fox news knows Obama isn't Muslim. His association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was covered quite extensively on Fox.

Yes, because he chose his name. In pluralistic societies, you have the choiceto chose your religion. He's christian.

As for tax cuts, let's not confuse the spin with tax credits - a form of wealth redistribution.

It is easy to confuse socialists regarding Economics. Tax credits are not the same as tax cuts calling them tax cuts is liberal spin. Let's get that straight.

Ahahahahah so tax credits are bad? You must hate Harper, then. As for actual taxes, credits aside, he did actually cut them. So please, spare me the righteousness regarding "liberal spin."

You ignored these points in my last response to your post.

Maybe if you ever used the "quote" tool properly. You've no idea how to use them and bits of my text and your text gets jumbled up and I don't know which is which. Use it properly next time and I'll respnd to everything.

They do have an answer....get Governemnt to sit down, relax, have a hot cup of shut the f**k up and just watch.

Which, no matter who is elected won't happen because both the freedom loving republicans and those freedom hating socialist democrats both essentially do the same thing. The difference is the Republicans lie about what they want to do. Before you go on about how Republicans are just as bad and the tea party is where it's at, the tea party is just an arm of the republican party, so don't even try to pull that argument out.

Oh...I bet you have tons of answers but we would have to go to the worldwide socialists wesite to find them or the Socialists International. This is simply not the forum for that kind of left wing critical thinking. Wha...wha...wha.

Well, when everything that you oppose is a socialist or a marxist, that's certainly the sign of critical thinking. Congrats.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ahahahahah so tax credits are bad? You must hate Harper, then....

...another Canadian reference in this US Politics area....how come you can do it and I shouldn't?

[Pliny]

FOX does not express opposition to big goverment. Exactly like the other major news organs, FOX has been entirely uncritical (in fact, sedulously silent) on Big government initiatives, such as the bi-partisan warrantless domestic spying program. It is reflexivly supportive of any military engagement--a reflexivity that is by definition support for big government. Also, they (like CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS) promoted the Iraq war by allowing disproportionate airtime to "experts," like ex-military officers, who met with officials at the Pentagon in order to learn the proper talking points to sell the war. The government called them "message force multipliers"; they were then explicitly presented on the news networks--FOX most of all--as "independent experts."

What you call "opposition to big government" is actually outright propaganda for the government. Explicit deception by the "anti-government" network, in concert with the other networks, to sell an explciitly Big-Government foreign policy initiative.

True. Fox even intentionally omits some small government initiatives. It is more Conservative than Republican but how many Libertarians voice their opinions on CNN or MSNBC?

There is at least some representation of the small government view on Fox even if it is generally used to bash the Liberal view of big government, at least it has some representation beyond being looked at as an odd remnant from the nineteenth century.

I do get their spin and don't say there is none. I just love it though when they peel off the left's spin and expose it for all to see.

They have poeple on there like John Stossel and Thomas Sowell and I think they are getting the message from the TEA party that big government is more the problem than the solution.

They have actual Economists on instead of Econometricians moving numbers around.

I forget who it was the other day but some "Econometrician" who said that the deficit was just a number on the balance sheet and was thus unimportant. Well, if that's true then I suppose all Federal taxes can be eliminated.

[Shady]

...or 10% of Democrats? LOL!

Exactly.

I actually think that the media, but polling the Obama/Muslim question every few months, have greatly contributed to the results of the polls. By asking the question of whether Obama's a Muslim, it implies that there's a question to begin with. And when you ask that same question over and over, it will eventually to begin resonate.

Edited September 5, 2010 by Shady

[nicky10013]

...another Canadian reference in this US Politics area....how come you can do it and I shouldn't?

Just a passing comment. Considering he's Canadian and hating on Obama for tax credits, I thought it might be interesting to see what he believes of his Canadian, right wing, Prime Minister doing the same thing here. I have a feeling he probably supports them and opposes Obama for the sake of opposing him.

See, it's related. You were just bringing up Canada because you thought you could offend me and spin the discussion topic in your direction because you obviously didn't, (and still don't) have an argument worth standing on.

[bush_cheney2004]

I actually think that the media, but polling the Obama/Muslim question every few months, have greatly contributed to the results of the polls. By asking the question of whether Obama's a Muslim, it implies that there's a question to begin with. And when you ask that same question over and over, it will eventually to begin resonate.

Agreed..I think you are spot on particularly for this lingering 2008 campaign issue...just like the Birthers. It takes on a life of its own.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just a passing comment. Considering he's Canadian and hating on Obama for tax credits, I thought it might be interesting to see what he believes of his Canadian, right wing, Prime Minister doing the same thing here. I have a feeling he probably supports them and opposes Obama for the sake of opposing him.

Oh..but you don't think I can do that because I am not Canadian? In passing, of course....LOL!

See, it's related. You were just bringing up Canada because you thought you could offend me and spin the discussion topic in your direction because you obviously didn't, (and still don't) have an argument worth standing on.

If you say so...obviously you are defensive when challenged for the very same thing. No matter, I will continue invoking Canada whenever I please...'cause it's related don'tcha know.

[punked]

Agreed..I think you are spot on particularly for this lingering 2008 campaign issue...just like the Birthers. It takes on a life of its own.

Yep it is everyone's fault BUT those who actually believe that stuipd lie. Gotcha.

[nicky10013]

Oh..but you don't think I can do that because I am not Canadian? In passing, of course....LOL!

You can, but it wasn't related. Want to talk about something related, let me know. Just saying: "Well, look what CANADA did!" as if you have nothing else to do but say "I know you are but what am I" followed by sticking out your tongue, isn't adding to the argument. You call me childish. Hilarious.

If you say so...obviously you are defensive when challenged for the very same thing. No matter, I will continue invoking Canada whenever I please...'cause it's related don'tcha know.

Nope. I said last night and I'll say it again. Refuting the delusions of morons I find particularly funny.