So true. I remember when Bush Sr. declared war on Iraq and it was a HUGE deal at the time. And to his credit, he did manage to build a real international coalition. But even then, it seemed like such a massive failure of diplomacy and a potentially dangerous thing to start.
Fast forward 30 years, and these little mini-wars seem like no big deal any more. Do they even "declare" war officially any more for that matter?
I seem to remember reading that official declarations of war haven't been made by the US since WW2? Or Korea? All the subsequent military endeavours have been less than 'official' war.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
I seem to remember reading that official declarations of war haven't been made by the US since WW2? Or Korea? All the subsequent military endeavours have been less than 'official' war.
Nope. I recall a lot of Vietnam veterans had trouble getting full benefits for a while because they weren't officially considered "war veterans". I think they have since removed that barrier. Of course, the ones who served in Cambodia and Laos were still swept under the rug because officially, the U.S. was never there.
I could have sworn the original Iraq war was declared at least verbally.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Nope. I recall a lot of Vietnam veterans had trouble getting full benefits for a while because they weren't officially considered "war veterans", or something like that.
I recall them not getting benefits. Didn't realize that was the reasoning.
Last edited by DownhillGoat; 04-29-2017 at 11:37 PM.
Daily Show comedian Hasan Minhaj absolutely killed it at the White House Correspondents Dinner. He mentions near the beginning that he was asked not to criticize Trump in his absence, and then for the next 25 minutes he completely goes to town on Trump and his entire administration, and also rips into the press. Very funny stuff. He gets a bit more serious towards the end with some heartfelt closing remarks.
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to direwolf For This Useful Post:
Oh man, that was good. Didn't hold back at all. The CNN stuff was priceless.
Like this guy on the daily show, he's been slamming Trump weekly since he became president but he lied when he claimed he's an immigrant, he was born and raised in northern California
Like this guy on the daily show, he's been slamming Trump weekly since he became president but he lied when he claimed he's an immigrant, he was born and raised in northern California
in this speech? I must have missed that...
23:40 he clearly states he's a 'first generation indian american muslim kid"
The Following User Says Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
being a first generation immigrant kid, i can state that I identify that "First Generation" is generally understood as being "First Generation that is born in a new country"...
being a first generation immigrant kid, i can state that I identify that "First Generation" is generally understood as being "First Generation that is born in a new country"...
otherwise I'd be an immigrant...
I agree with you, but if I was an alt right person trying to discredit him I would choose the definition that suited me
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
(CNN)The EPA removed most climate change information from its website Friday, saying in a press release that language on the website is being updated to "reflect the approach of new leadership."
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has expressed doubt about the reasons for climate change, saying in a CNBC interview in March that he was skeptical of the role carbon dioxide plays.
Back-to-Basics: Sycamore, PA
Administrator Scott Pruitt announces efforts to refocus EPA on its intended mission, return power to the states, and create an environment where jobs can grow.
I agree with you, but if I was an alt right person trying to discredit him I would choose the definition that suited me
I am sure the alt right discredited him the first time they saw his name...
As for 'discredit', as Jon Stewart would say - "I am on a show on the Comedy Network..."
Quite frankly, the idea of the Alt Right holding Hasan Minhaj, a comedian from Comedy Central hosting a roast, to a higher standard than the POTUS is funnier than anything i heard in that video
.
I think there is more middle ground and agreement between us then differences. I think we have opposing views on how to solve these issues.
Yes, there is common ground. There is common ground in everything, and that’s how deals to improve governance are supposed to be achieved. The problem is that one side started drawing lines in the sand and refusing to cooperate. This grand strategy was established with Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America. What really screwed things up was the inclusion of a loyalty pledge. This loyalty pledge elevated Party and ideology above country and codified the schism into the system, making it impossible to reference the very values that we should considered shared. When you have a group of people who will not cooperate in any shape or form, just to maintain their loyalty pledge, you will never strike deals toward the middle ground. They are always going to be focusing on the extremes. So while you and I may say there is middle ground for agreement, our representatives in Washington cannot find them because Party comes first.
Quote:
I thank you for engaging and keeping the defamation to a minimum.
And the Liberal Fonzie thanks you for staying above the fray as well.
Quote:
Okay, so I win the Regan [sic] debate. Thank you for falling on your sword early.
I didn't realize there was a debate to be had...... I agree with you but chalk that up as a win if you like.
I could have sworn that’s what we were doing here. You were going to cut off the head of the snake by taking down Liberal Fonzie. I inferred we were going to debate? Maybe I should have taken you a little more literal and inferred we were really going to have a dance-off???
Quote:
You treat every issue separately, just with tropes torn from the pages of Fox, Breitbart, and Infowars. If you're not getting your information from those sources, you're getting them from secondary sources which have lifted their information from those primary sources.
You don't know where I get my information, you can make assumptions that suit your narrative and lump it in with those sites, that doesn't mean it's true. I do look at Fox and Breitbart from time to time, but that doesn't mean I agree with them on everything or anything really. I loathe Alex Jones and infowars in all honesty, I think they do a huge disservice to anybody with an alternative viewpoint. I could elaborate on that in more depth if you like, but I think you get the gist. I try to look at multiple sources and perspectives then draw my own conclusions, there isn't one source I base all my perspectives around. I try to maintain a certain level of skepticism of all of it. It's all biased on both sides and framed to push an ideological agenda.
See, but it’s not. Because something clashes with the way you think something is does not mean it is biased. Because you think the earth is flat does not make everyone else biased in their view of the world being a spherical obolid. You may not like presentation, and I think the presentation in the media is a big problem, but you must get past that and instead distill the facts and reality of stories. This is why certain media outlets are considered trustworthy and why Fox News is considered Fox News. There are a great number of media outlets that have a history of, and continue to provide, consistent fact based reporting of issues, and also have a long history of being correct in their reporting. When they screw up, and media can get things wrong, they do the right thing and publish a correction. This maintains their credibility and trustworthiness.
On where you get your information, I personally don’t care. What would be helpful is if you cited where you got certain tidbits. That would allow people to see that you’re not getting them from these tin foil hat web sites, because that is the narrative you’re forwarding. If you want to prove you’re not just getting your stuff from Fox, Breitbart and Infowars, cite accordingly. That was what led to the end of TFF. He was so in denial that he could not own up to the fact that the information he was presenting was from Infowars. Even though he presented word-for-word from a story on the front page of their website. If you believe you are better than that, cite your sources. It is informative to the people reading what you say and provides credibility to your post.
Quote:
What issue should we discuss? For the most part I'm just playing the role devils advocate for the vast majority of left-wing bias in this thread. Otherwise it's just an echo chamber of anti-Trump supporters. I think the biggest problem for you and many that seem to share your political perspective, is the need to define the narrative of those who oppose you as blank, that way you can frame your argument against them. Case and point the whole "Reagan debate" that you apparently won.
I don’t care what issue we discuss. Pick one and try to present a coherent argument. Don’t make some off-the-cuff statement, then watch as someone else body slams you with facts, then cry foul. You brought up St. Reagan and I pointed out many of the things that are contradictory to the position you presented. You next agreed with me and abandoned the point. In rhetoric, that is called a win.
Quote:
I could cite things but what's the point? If it's not something that tows the establishment narrative, it will be dismissed as "fake news" (I'm really getting sick of that phrase).
Did you think that it being dismissed as fake news is accurate, and that you’re the rube in the room being manipulated by disinformation? I approach every story I read with that in the back of my mind. Does this information make sense? Is it consistent across media sources from a broad cross-section of reputable sources? Disinformation is very effective because it is crafted to appeal to those things we think we already know and appeals to our core beliefs. For example, this is why religious conservatives are more likely to believe disinformation campaigns. Their reliance on faith to guide their thought processes make them easy targets for messages which are designed with moralistic underpinnings. So it is valuable to share your sources of information and have others validate the information, one way or another.
Quote:
And everything big business touches ends up becoming corrupted and focused on nothing more than earning a dollar off the backs of the workers. See how easy it is to rely on vague useless narratives? See how ineffective they are?
This is the root of the problems, big business is in bed with the government. These giant corporations lobby and use the government to regulate against their competition and use the tax payers as an atm to fund their various agendas.
So big business, who we should be trusting to do everything for us, is actually the root of the problem because big business is corrupting government by using unscrupulous practices to influence the system so they can steal all of our public money? I think you just turned into a “liberal,” because that is pretty much the underlying issue for the vast majority of us in this thread. Our systems of government are screwed up because people with money see a position in government as having the keys to the big public piggy bank. Welcome to the dark side.
Quote:
The reality is that there are certain things that each should do, and then things they should not do. Business should focus on the things they are really good at. Stick to the areas where they have a core competency and focus on providing that product or service.
I agree, in some ways there needs to be fewer regulations and then at the same time, there also needs to better regulations as well.
In absence of better regulation, I will take more regulation over less. When I hear a phony like Trump talking about eliminating regulation that tells me they view regulation – the rules meant to protect the little guy – as a barrier to making a quick profit. Regulations are there for a reason. Just like why there are three branches of government. They protect the system from the people, and the people from the system. Regulations are a necessary evil in a world where corporations will poison their customers to make a quick buck.
Quote:
[Government is actually pretty good at what they do, when the do what they are charged to do. When government focuses on big ideas beyond those of the private sector, and implementing those programs, they do so in a very effective way. Government health care is vastly superior to that handled by the private sector.
The problem is the government is always pushing to have more control over more sectors. Healthcare is debatable, the real problem is all the big money interests tied up in the system. I think it would be better to make it easier for the free market to operate to keep the costs down, then hand it over to the government to control.
I don’t agree with this at all. Government rarely wants to be involved in any sort of business sector. Government involvement is almost always a result of some type of complaint or problem coming from that sector itself. If a sector is doing something dangerous to the public good, the government has to get involved, because corporations are too big and powerful for the market to correct itself. That is the problem with the bolded comment above. The free market cannot be trusted to keep costs down because the goal of the free market is to make profit and create value for shareholders. There are things in this world where making a profit should be considered immoral. Making a profit off an essential service (police, fire, education, etc.) should not be allowed. Making a profit off someone else’s misery should not be allowed. Allowing the market to try and control costs over health and human services is like letting the proverbial fox look after the chickens. The market sure did a bang up job with controlling the costs of epi-pens!
Quote:
The military manages to do a pretty good at executing a massive responsibility. Social services and education are also massive programs that the government is pretty good at. And let's not forget Public Safety. Our good men and women in police and fire do a fantastic job. All of these are much better than anything that is provided by private interests.
The American military is a huge problem. It's gone way past protecting the citizens of the US from an external threat, to interventionist imperialism that serves the interests of an industry that the tax payers foot the bill for.
That’s not a problem of the military, that is a problem of Foreign Policy. The military is a blunt force object. Foreign Policy is how that blunt force object is used.
Quote:
I don't think it should be the role of government to provide social services for the citizens. If they are so good at education, why is it public school system getting worse and not better?
If not government, then who? The free market? You mean the likes of Betsy DeVos? No thank you.
The conservative distrust of government is disturbing. Conservatives seem to forget that the government is of the people and for the people. The government and all of its institutions are supposed to be working for each of us. If they are not, then we need to fix that, and we do so by sending better representatives to the houses of governance. There is where the real problem is. We continue to send bad people to represent us. We get the government we deserve because we can’t pick good people to do our bidding. Until we get good people in office, those who actually want to serve their fellow man and not get into power for power and money, then we will continue to have bad government.
Quote:
We can see how Trump is dealing with the constraints of government. It isn't easy doing things where you have to represent the issues of everyone, and this is another weakness of business. They are only good at operating within their bubble and their focus.
Thankfully the founders of America put in those government constraints, especially for politicians like Trump. I agree let let the free market operate with as minimal government interference as possible. There shouldn't be these giant corporate monopolies that government plays favourites with. I think the fundamental role of government is to protect the rights and liberties of it's citizens, anything more then that is doomed to be corrupt and oppressive. Government should handle certain public safety services such as police, fire and especially the prison system. The Privatized prison system is evil.
Do the two bolded sections not show the fault in your logic? Business and corporations require oversight, or they will just work the system as they best they can to make as much money as quickly as possible. Corporations cannot be trusted any more than one house of government. That is why they need oversight and that is where government and regulation comes in.
Quote:
Really? It's not a partisan thing? Who keeps coming in and making all of these massive tax cuts with no way of paying for them? You can argue that Kennedy started the cutting, but his plan was responsible and didn't incur much debt as a result. It really started with Saint Reagan, and he added trillions at double digit interest, continued on with W. and is now falling to Trump to make things even worse.
The tax cuts aren't the problem, it's the spending that is the issue. If you are broke and in debt, the best thing you can do is curtail the spending, this is especially true for governments. Kennedy's plan was great and very effective. Reagan's plan wasn't nearly as responsible for reasons that we've already gone over.
Both are a problem. You can’t have spending and tax cuts together. Unfortunately, you have to pay for certain services the people have entrusted with the government. BTW, government is just one big way of self-insuring. The government is a collective body which oversees the well-being of our society. We are all part of the government. So when we institute one of these programs, that some like to call an entitlement, we are all paying into it to guarantee the viability of some program or service. These things should be self-funding and continual. If they are not it is because someone dipped their little paws into the system and either took money out, or prevented the flow of dollars in to support the system. Tax cuts directly affect things like this. There is a promise to pay people for what they put in, so pay them, even if that means increasing taxes.
Quote:
Obama, having to deal with the crashing economy that W. left him still only added 67% to the debt, and almost half of that came in the first two and half years of his eight in office as he cleaned up the Bush debacle.
Yeah Bush obviously royally screwed things, no debate there, but Obama didn't make them any better. You can't just blame all of Obama's failures on the GOP and Bush, they were factors but that doesn't excuse his failures as President.
No one is suggesting that Obama did not have his faults. His Foreign Policy was an extension of the Bush Doctrine. He was not as forceful as he should have been domestically. He should have hammered home single payer when he had the chance. He had his faults. But Obama also had to deal with a level of obstructionism the country had never seen before. This goes back to Newt Gingrich and the loyalty pledge. Party became more important for Republicans than country and compromise was removed from their vocabulary.
Preemptive strike: I know you’re going to claim that Democrats are just as bad, and that argument is just flat out wrong. Democrats never changed the rules at their whim like Mitch McConnell and his band of miscreants have done. The Republicans have changed the rules, mid game, to their liking. And this behavior is happening in legislatures across the country. This is not a bipartisan problem.
Quote:
This is not a bipartisan effort. Facts do not support your claim.
So where is all the money going to come from for ACA?
Where is should come from. Taxes. They can start by making the rich pay their fair share. I pay my 35%, but guys like Trump and Romney pay 15% if they pay anything at all. That ain’t right. Make them pay their fair share. Close all the loop holes. Make corporations pay as well. It is criminal that Exxon Mobil gets $8 billion back from the government rather than paying for they consume.
Quote:
When people have more money from not having to pay as much tax, they have more money to circulate in the economy which leads to growth. Spending ridiculous amounts of money and taking on massive debt, is a pretty short sighted way to grow the economy clearly. Cut the spending and taxes so that you can grow the economy and quit accumulating so much debt seems like the most viable way forward. Again not a Reagan fan.
Quote:
Only under Clinton, and some responsible budgeting by Congress, did the economy start clicking again.
Well the emergence of the tech sector certainly helped, I'm not sure how much credit Clinton deserves other then it happened under his watch. It was more dumb luck timing for Bill then any sort of shrewd policy.
Lets give credit where credit is really due on the tech sector. That goes to Silicon Valley and to California for establishing a hive of innovation and capital. Oh, and that is in the highest taxed state in the country.
Let’s also acknowledge that it takes leadership to answer the door when opportunity knocks. With the challenges of climate change and the dire need to get off hydrocarbons as our primary source of power, this is a prime moment for innovation and change. Is America leading the way in developing and refining new technologies for the next century? Nope. Screw green tech. Let the Germans, Chinese, Indians, South Africans, and so on continue to lead the way. We’ll go back to 1960 and push for more drilling and coal use. And this leadership issue is not just focused in the US. Look at Alberta. Are they doing anything to diversify or develop new technologies for the future? Alberta should be leading the world in fuel cell development and manufacturing. They should be creating product that will support the use of clean natural gas. But leaders don’t have the brains nor the sack to do anything innovative. We could be watching the birth of the next big tech boom, but we need to stay on fossil fuels because they have such an effective lobby.
Quote:
When facts and science are things you laugh at, you’re past the point of no return. How tight is your tinfoil hat?
What facts and science have I laughed at? The 30 plus genders and counting isn't grounded in science, especially biology. But I'm open to any science you have proves that wrong. The gender pay gap is so easily debunked and just a disingenuous political talking point. Again, I'm open to any facts you have proving that wrong. Your earlier attempts were fruitless.
I don’t recall talking much to this (gender pay gap) subject because I believe there are social forces which support such a gap. Yes, the gap exists, but it does so as a result of past behaviors.
Quote:
My sources include The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, BBC, CBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CSPAN, Time, Newsweek, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Foreign Policy, The Independent, The Boston Globe, and so on. I also tend to use government websites and a lot of journals where possible. It is nice having access to multiple reference libraries.
Yeah there's no Ideological bias and agenda in any of those outlets. Come on dude, be honest now. You do realize that the CBC is funded by tax payers and pretty far from anything that would be considered center at this point. You use the main stream establishments media, to argue the main stream political narrative and call everything else fake news and dismiss it as tinfoil hat conspiracy. Yeah were not going to agree.
You’re right, we’re not going to agree. Your understanding of journalism and media is so limited it is impossible to have a conversation on the issue. For you, you base everything on ideological spin and how it makes you feel. I consume the information in search of facts and then look for other sources to confirm the existence of information. I really look past the writing style and instead focus on the process and the content. When these sources are right in their reporting 95% of the time, they are trustworthy. They still require fact checking, but they are consistent in their methods and the reliability of their work is extremely high. Other sources, like Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars and the like are not reliable and do not follow any journalistic standards in coverage. Without those standards and reliability, you are no better than the National Enquirer and are “fake news.”
Quote:
Where the #### did you did up that bull####? I did an actual search on that claim, and low and behold your post comes up as the #4. The other links were all specious at best. One was linked through Graham Hancock, an English version of Alex Jones, and the other two referenced a speaker from American Enterprise Institute who made the claim that 18% of academics harbor that bias. That number just happens to be the same as Hancock, which took 30 seconds to debunk. Here’s the actual study.
Admittedly it's a hard thing to quantify because you have to assume that everyone you are polling is being honest with you. But if you look at the current climate in academia
and post secondary, it's a very clear left-wing bias. Trigger warnings, safe spaces and political correctness rule to such an extent that you can't even have conservative speakers give lectures at universities without some sort of protest or the administration shutting it down.
News Flash: Being educated leads to more liberal views!
Shocking, I know. The bolded parts are such BS. The reason there is political correctness on campuses is because the College Republicans demand it. David Horowitz and the CR have made teaching a living hell, where faculty must be careful not to offend for fear of lawsuits. Presenting facts in the classroom can be so damn controversial!
Quote:
How is Graham Hancock the "English version of Alex Jones"? Wouldn't that be David Icke? Have you actually read anything that he has published or listened to any of his talks? That's a strange statement.
They are both tin foil hat wearing conspiracy freaks. You need not defend either of them.
I think that is more than enough.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Trump, Pence and transition team knew fully aware of Flynn's Turkey (not sure if they knew Turkey connections were Russian funded though) links as they did do a background check on him prior to his hiring as National Security adviser. He only hires the best traitors
Quote:
The White House and President Trump's transition team reportedly did a background check on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in addition to his already approved security clearance, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow reported Friday evening.
"NBC News has learned from sources close to the Trump-Russia investigation that both the Trump transition and the White House did do a background check on Flynn," Maddow said on her program, citing reporting from NBC's Andrea Mitchell.
"This is in addition to his already approved security clearance. They did a background check on Flynn specifically for him to become national security adviser."
Trump and other White House officials have blamed former President Barack Obama for authorizing Flynn's security clearance. Flynn served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama before advising Trump's campaign and joining his administration.
Maddow said Friday that NBC reporting showed that "the vetting of Flynn was done and sources close to the investigation tell NBC that it was done 'very casually.'"
"One person involved tells NBC that the Trump transition was aware of Flynn's business ties to Turkey," she said.
