Obama defaults on Federal Lawsuit Jeopardizes Presidential..

[Ack]

You do realize that the bailout had to come up twice because the Republicans refused to vote for it the first time, and many of them did on the second only begrudgingly because they had no idea what else to do, right? Also, what is Bush's current approval rating? How many Republicans like him as president? How many Conservatives? While in general their attitudes are more favorable, they have large grievances with his administration as well. Now most of his rampant spending has been geared towards the defense industry, so it's been easier to stomach for the right-wing, though they don't like it very much either. Still, after Reagan's attempts to end the Cold War by outspending the Russians to the point of collapse...you get the idea.

Also, you need to consider the average voter. They do little research into their candidates beyond watching the news. And after 2001, they were genuinely scared. Hence why the Patriot Act was passed. While I understand some of the ideas in the Patriot Act and what I believe to be its intended purpose, I can also see how easily it could be subverted and abused and so I won't defend it. But this kind of government response to a national crisis is not new. Look at the Great Depression, and the social programs of FDR after the national response to Hoover's perceived lack of federal help. Look at how radicals were being treated in the 1920s by law enforcement after the West noted the Bolshevik Revolution. Heck, look at the gearing up of our military industrial complex during World War II.

Actually, that leads to another point: how has America acted in times of war? Lincoln stripped Habeas Corpus. In World War II, rationing and recycling were required for almost everything, and people were even told to watch what they say as German spies might be listening. Now we have the War on Terror. The issue here is that it seems like a war that has no possible end, much like the War on Drugs. Yet in its early days, or nation was gearing up for an actual war, unlike the War on Drugs. And because of bumbling about with Iraq, we haven't got the morale to keep it up the way we have in the past. The media is now slamming the government, probably out of a sense of revenge for its being used as a propaganda tool five years ago(again, something that is quite normal during wartime in America). Yet many of those in government see us as still in a war and behave accordingly.

As for our image abroad, it's actually pretty similar. Foreign nations don't see this as a war either, even when its battles have occasionally ended up on their doorstep. The only people that do see it as a war are the people we're at war against, hence our trouble with pulling out. This will lead the opposition to either declare victory, or pursue us. Hence the poor international opinion abroad and the reason we can't simply just drop it and go do something else.

You want a quick way to end this attitude in the Republican party? Think of a quick way to win the war.

[disorderlyvision]

You do realize that the bailout had to come up twice because the Republicans refused to vote for it the first time, and many of them did on the second only begrudgingly because they had no idea what else to do, right?

you mean begrudgingly after adding another 150 billion in payouts?

While I understand some of the ideas in the Patriot Act and what I believe to be its intended purpose, I can also see how easily it could be subverted and abused and so I won't defend it.

like spying on our own troops, that has been all over the news...

Actually, that leads to another point: how has America acted in times of war? Lincoln stripped Habeas Corpus. In World War II, rationing and recycling were required for almost everything, and people were even told to watch what they say as German spies might be listening. Now we have the War on Terror. The issue here is that it seems like a war that has no possible end, much like the War on Drugs. Yet in its early days, or nation was gearing up for an actual war, unlike the War on Drugs. And because of bumbling about with Iraq, we haven't got the morale to keep it up the way we have in the past. The media is now slamming the government, probably out of a sense of revenge for its being used as a propaganda tool five years ago(again, something that is quite normal during wartime in America). Yet many of those in government see us as still in a war and behave accordingly.

just because it isn't new doesn't make it right.. you should read the book Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime: From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism by Geoffrey R. Stone
it is a well researched book going back through history and telling how basically everytime there is a war the citizens lose freedoms, no its nothing new, but it is still BS. the thing is there used to be and end to these wars, and people got their freedoms back, mostly. now we have a war on "terror" which could feasibly never end, and never reinstate the liberties they have taken.

I alway appreciate your responses ack. I love having debates with well informed people.

[alexjames01]

While i wont get into it in this thread (i have other websites for this), I will say that, Ack, I have agreed with everything you've said and you're spot on in my opinion.

[Ack]

Thank you, alexjames.

To disorderlyvision,

Actually, yes, and if you think they complained before, you should have read the howls of anger on the sites I visit. Personally I don't think people should have been able to get houses out of their spending limit in the first place, but hey, what do I know. Here's the bill for folks who haven't gotten to read it:

Bailout Bill

Republicans don't like the bill, period. But unfortunately it's bad PR from the media if they didn't pass it(which is just great right before an election) because it makes them look bad in front of all those poor people that shouldn't have been buying houses in the first place. And if the mortgage industry collapses, how many other people get caught up in it? How many banks that were loaning them money? How many related businesses? If we're lucky, the value of the items we just picked up will actually increase and when we start chucking all the crap we just bought, we might get some more money in the coffers, which can go towards paying off some of that debt that's so high.

Second off, I haven't read anything about spying on our own troops. Possibly I missed those articles. Though it is possible that some of our troops have questionable ties or are being monitored for other reasons, as our military will take almost anyone who's physically fit and doesn't openly declare themselves a homosexual. I do know the military does have a tendency towards censoring mail and other communications, as a soldier might potentially leak classified information in a letter to his wife. I have read reports about monitoring international phone calls, which again might lead to our troops as they call home. I had a friend in Iraq call me at one point to tell me how bad the food was, for instance. There's also questions of how the military is supposed to be monitoring the morale and psychological conditions of men in the field, as I doubt a soldier is going to write "I feel like fragging my buddies," or worse, on an evaluation form.

I would argue that we've been fighting wars like this since the end of World War II, namely the Cold War. This leads to a sticking point about war in general, however. Rights are suspended often in an attempt to enforce loyalty in a populace while decreasing the chance that sensitive information is leaked to the enemy. As good as the equipment and training is of our military, if the enemy always knows our next step before we take it, how effective are we really?

Think of it as this analogy. How easy is it to win a poker game if everybody else can see your cards, but you can't see theirs? Now as for an end to the War on Terror, no, it's an ongoing war, but there is always the possibility of specific events causing it to slack off. Currently the big enemy is Al Qaeda, much like North Koreans in the early 1950s. But we have an ideological war against what we believe to be Islamic Extremism, just like in the Cold War we were trying to fend off Communism, the difference being that there is no major player like Russia to consider the villain(the closest is Iran, but they're no USSR). Unfortunately those remnants of Communism also remain and are potentially going to begin spreading and joining the Islamic Extremists in a wave of anti-Americanism, antisemitism, and anti-Capitalism.

Anyway, I do wish to point out that I agree, I dislike losing my rights and having them revoked. But I understand why certain things are being revoked and as I believe we're fighting the good fight, I'm more willing to do so.

In fact on a personal note, I'd like to ask do you think we should be combating Islamic Extremism? What about Communism? Should we be involved in the Middle East? Should we be allied with Israel? If not, who should we be allied with(not just in the Middle East, but globally)? I think it will make for an interesting difference of opinions based on the answers of people here.

[disorderlyvision]

what a minute...bad pr? give me a break. 80%+ of the people were against this bill. how in the world would it have been bad pr?? if McCain would have voted it down do you really think he would be so far behind in the polls? it would have been an auto win for him. The backlash against the bill is huge. There is no way it would have made them look bad. it would have made them look ::gasp:: conservative. and if they are that easily influenced by the media they shouldn't be in politics. it means that don't have the fortitude to stand by their principles.

[Ack]

McCain once claimed the media were his base. His economic beliefs are more centrist than right, and the people effected by this proposal were traditionally lower income earners, ie. people who usually vote Democrat, the same people McCain's been trying to appeal to to gain votes. Now the current polls are also suspect as they tend to improportionally favor Democrats, based on the breakdown percentages given by some polling places. And yes, many people were against the bill, though I don't know where you got your percentages. I also know some people that were for it at the time that now think it was a bad idea, but hindsight is 20/20.

[disorderlyvision]

NSA caught spying on troops

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/11405

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress ... wn-troops/ from a conservative website

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s8AaOsULKA

it was even reported on main stream news channels

and on the bailout %. i was a bit off 30% supported it. the point is a majority were against it, so it would have helped any candidate that voted against it. i know in my area their are a lot of people who are going to vote against anyone that voted for the bailout...could just be my area.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,428921,00.html

"Just 30 percent of Americans say they support Bush's package, according to an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll released"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 3090.story
"Asked whether the government should use taxpayer dollars to rescue financial firms whose collapse could have adverse effects on the economy, 55% of the poll's respondents said they did not believe the government should be responsible for funding a bailout plan."

and my feelings on alliances can be summed up by Thomas Jefferson..."Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." -

[Ack]

Well, let's start with the article then.

"55% of the poll's respondents said they did not believe the government should be responsible for funding a bailout plan."

Yeah, they're right, a lot of folks didn't necessarily want the government to interfere. But at the same time...

"57% of respondents think the government is doing the right thing by intervening to stabilize the economy."

At this point, you're also barely going to get anybody that supports something with the Bush administration's name on it.

As for the NSA spying on troops, as the video states, the guy thinks they were doing it simply because it was another international phone call. Monitoring international communications sounds like something the NSA would do. Typically the military monitors its people's communications anyway for the reasons I stated in a previous post. And considering how many phone calls they must listen to, I'm sure phone sex would sound pretty interesting.

Also on a side note, MSNBC does have an agenda to promote, one that is fiercely anti-Republican and anti-Bush administration. Keep in mind that any and all news they report does feature a certain amount of spin behind it.

[disorderlyvision]

Well, let's start with the article then.
Also on a side note, MSNBC does have an agenda to promote, one that is fiercely anti-Republican and anti-Bush administration. Keep in mind that any and all news they report does feature a certain amount of spin behind it.

it was on other news orgs, i am almost positive it was on fox as well, because that is pretty much the only channel my parents watch (not news channel, but only channel period)and they knew about it. i am pretty sure fox doesnt have a "fiercely anti-republican" agenda.

and you can justify it however you want, it still goes against the supposed intentions of the patriot act, and proves they are abusing their power, which was my ultimate point. if you are cool with them spying on military, i could just as easily find a slew of sources showing how they spy domestically on citizens....though the were spying on citizens well before the patriot act, as bill clinton had his own monitoring system in place...which leads me to my original point that both republicans and democrats in washington are worthless and need to be removed from office.

[dsheinem]

And it would seem we ain't the only angry side, either.

I just KNEW this sounded fishy from the get go: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/ ... index.html