Obama bows to Saudi king?!?!?!?

[ragged]

Americans have forgotten what is means to be American. Land of the free, home off the brave, equal opportunity for all.

This is all Monday morning quarterback BS.

 

[mulester7]

This is all Monday morning quarterback BS.

.....exactly, Ragged....none of us have a clue what's being said behind closed doors where the deals are really made....I can see our debating the economics of the land, but to debate politics on our level is actually ludicrous.....

 

[mulester7]

.....by the way, don't you reside in Canada?....

.....Yessir, that lit the fuse .....

 

[unreal.freak]

.....Yessir, that lit the fuse .....

"Shut up" is what you mean right?

this is a good video to watch. It will shed some light on mulester approach to the conservatives.

 

[Davemcc]

piss you off and you do well

Nah...I rarely ever get pissed off. It takes too much energy. I wish I could have found a way to express disappointment with that post. Honestly, I've found a lot of your older posts in my AH travels and I guess I just expected something better of you.

.....Yessir, that lit the fuse .....

Nah...again. I'm quite comfortable with my Canadian identity but it does present a unique dichotomy in a U.S.-centric continent. For one, economic and policy decisions usually have some degree of affect on my life, direct or indirect, yet I don't get a vote in your elections. On the other hand, social and legal trends that have an impact on Americans quite often have no effect since we have a distinct culture and legal system in place, often characterized by vastly different regulatory systems. There are still so many things we have in common as North Americans in terms of ambitions, goals, desires, etc. that I really enjoy these off-topic forums as a place to share ideas and discuss the events that shape all our lives.

The one policy of both Bush's and Obama's administrations that I really don't care for is their plan to seal off and fortify the U.S.-Canada border and treat Canadian visitors to the U.S. as persona non grata. Bush started this as part of the homeland security effort after 9/11 and Obama's administration seems determined to bring it to fruition. For centuries, Americans and Canadians treated each other more like family than friends (heck, my sister is American) but the Obama administration seems to consider us alien strangers to be looked upon with distrust and suspicion, just the same as Bush's policy. So much for change I can believe in.

What the heck, just read the article. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/GAM.20090326.BORDER26/TPStory/TPComment

 

[Alex2507]

"Shut up" is what you mean right?

Almost ...
Let's play a game ...

That's directed at Klavan.

 

[Davemcc]

Almost ...
Let's play a game ...

That's directed at Klavan.

You just proved Klavan's point.

Oh, the irony...

 

[unreal.freak]

You just proved Klavan's point.

Oh, the irony...

This is fun isnt it?


Peace,
Tommy

 

[Alex2507]

You just proved Klavan's point.

Oh, the irony...

Only on the surface. He's saying that the liberal response to every Rush Limbaugh argument is shut up and that is simply not true. Personally I would love to see Klavan dragged off to a CIA prison on foreign soil or Bush's Guantanomo where his verbal contributions would not only be listened to but eagerly encouraged. To sort of snow ball and embroil this into a completely tangled mess I also want to point out that those would be perfect places for someone to start babbling about Obama being a Hitler like fascist and praising Bush for the resort like accommodations. Obviously I enjoy a nice low blow as much as the next guy.

The guy just got there and he's got Klavan critiquing him. Puh-lease.

 

[Alex2507]

This is fun isnt it?


Peace,
Tommy

Well not really because my response took 19 minutes for me to put together.
I'm leaving and you're welcome.

 

[Adam]

Well not really because my response took 19 minutes for me to put together.
I'm leaving and you're welcome.

It read very well, though, so thanks.

Now, just head back to the boring thread where responses should take more than about 30 seconds.

 

[Davemcc]

Only on the surface. He's saying that the liberal response to every Rush Limbaugh argument is shut up and that is simply not true.

Yet it is true enough to make a general case. Case in point, my Fox News thread. The predominant response could be characterized as "Fox News???!!!...Shut Up."

Personally I would love to see Klavan dragged off to a CIA prison on foreign soil or Bush's Guantanomo where his verbal contributions would not only be listened to but eagerly encouraged.

Now I've never heard of Klavan until today, but I will take a chance and say that he was not arrested at a terrorist training camp, never took up arms against an American soldier and never conspired to murder any civilians in any nation. If you want the people who have done these things released back into society, perhaps we could arrange to have them released on your recognizance.

To sort of snow ball and embroil this into a completely tangled mess I also want to point out that those would be perfect places for someone to start babbling about Obama being a Hitler like fascist and praising Bush for the resort like accommodations. Obviously I enjoy a nice low blow as much as the next guy.

The issue of whether America is embracing a fascist direction and whether Obama's policies are playing into that political model are valid subjects for discussion. The real danger is in not discussing these issues as they arise.

Policy decisions have a defined place in the established political spectrum model. There are other fascist economic models besides Germany's to compare to that seem to gather some admiration. Perhaps America truly prefers a fascist system of gov't and that's fine by me since I have no say in the matter, as long as you don't try to dress it up as something else.

 

[unreal.freak]

Well not really because my response took 19 minutes for me to put together.
I'm leaving and you're welcome.

Oh C'mon and stick around...we are all learning something here.
Im no Klavan fanboi, but i find this particular video to be very accurate.

Peace,
Tommy

 

[Alex2507]

"If you want the people who have done these things released back into society, perhaps we could arrange to have them released on your recognizance."

I thought that upon their release they all got taxi jobs in TO.

Dave, I don't think that you're playing fair and I like that but I must respectfully decline the invitation to nowhere and back with you. Just because I am ill equipped for a discussion on this level doesn't mean that all the detainees were what you said and fascism goes well beyond an economic model. But I'm being sucked into this sure as shooting and that's my fault.

Well go ahead and get your dig in but above all I blame Tommy.

 

[unreal.freak]

but above all I blame Tommy.

Your welcome

 

[avaserfi]

Alex, I got your back because I agree, this is a misrepresentation of reality. One that Dave has been skeptical of in previous discussions, in fact.

Yet it is true enough to make a general case. Case in point, my Fox News thread. The predominant response could be characterized as "Fox News???!!!...Shut Up."

The same could be said about republicans and MSNBC, CNN or the media in general aside from Fox, of course.

As far as democrats vs republicans and the shut up debate it is ludicrous. Both sides use it and forcefully. Republicans used it during the days of McCarthyism rooting out anyone who disagreed and silencing the rest. More recently, soon after 9/11 anyone who protested the Patriot act (the name says it all), the wars or Bush was called "Un-American" or "Unpatriotic." In contrast, some democrats pull the race card for Obama or some of their policies among other things. The only difference? The side of the fence you sit on and when you are telling the other party to shut up.

Regarding Klavan's defense of Limbaugh or Coulter as trying to be silenced, I see this as far from the case. There are many valid reasons that can be argued on why these people are bad representatives for their party or just plain hateful people. Then again, this does not mean they should be silenced in my opinion, but I certainly wouldn't complain if their polarizing hateful views went away.

Klavan's argument boils down to rhetoric for one side of the debate which is, just as easily transferred to the other side because both parties are similar in so many ways. Notice how he only glances over talking points and doesn't actually explain his logic. Net neutrality is democrats telling republicans to shut up? Come on, these are sound bytes not well based arguments. As Tomorrow posted earlier, lets get the emotion out and the logic and reason back into the discourse.

Now I've never heard of Klavan until today, but I will take a chance and say that he was not arrested at a terrorist training camp, never took up arms against an American soldier and never conspired to murder any civilians in any nation. If you want the people who have done these things released back into society, perhaps we could arrange to have them released on your recognizance.

It is likely he has not done such things, but how do we know everyone who has been taken to our black op sites around the world has? That is the root of the problem ignoring the constitution just because you have the power to does not make it right, even in the guise of national security. This applies as much to Obama as it does to Bush. Bush might have started the trend, but currently Obama is defending it.

The issue of whether America is embracing a fascist direction and whether Obama's policies are playing into that political model are valid subjects for discussion. The real danger is in not discussing these issues as they arise.

Agreed, in fact I would argue it is unpatriotic to not create a discourse on our countries leaders.

 

[Davemcc]

All good points Andrew. As far as the constitution is concerned, I think it applies to all persons on American soil. I don't think that Guantanamo is considered American soil in which case the constitution has no legal standing, although I could be mistaken. AFAIK, all the detainees have access to legal counsel and have been scheduled to recieve a trial by military tribunal, being enemy combatants. During this public process, all will be revealed as to who recieved what treatment and why.

I would argue that these are not the people that should be allowed to set foot on American soil and/or receive trial in the liberally biased American civilian courts.

 

[highfigh]

Highfigh, you are missing one crucial point.
Most (not all) people that voted for Obama don't know Barney Frank, Franklin Raines and Chris Dodd.
Most young voters get their news from the John Stewart Show on the comedy channel.
I wish I were kidding, but it's true.
Oh that, and skits on Saturday Night Live.
Edit: Oops, I forgot The Colbert Nation

I haven't missed that point but I didn't address it. Howard Stern had one of the people from the show go into Manhattan to ask people some questions about the people who were running. Many didn't know that Sarah Palin was the Republican nominee for VP when the question was presented as "what's your opinion of Palin as Obama's running mate. Now, it's entirely possible (and plausible) that the whole thing was set up but with the impact of ACORN being as wide as it is, I see it as entirely likely that these people didn't have a clue. The way older first-time voters are added to the roles, I'd be very surprised if they actually knew anything about the qualifications of the candidates, at all.

This is especially problematic since this election was billed as "historic" by the media. The first problem is that it was billed as anything and the second is that it was called historic for the obvious reason. Too many people jumped on the bandwagon because of that, instead of the issues. As bad as so many people think McCain is/would have been for the country, does anyone actually think about how close the election was considering the number of Obama voters who had never voted before?

My point isn't that I see the election outcome as entirely racially based but that too often, people will vote for someone when they don't know what they stand for. I actually liked some of what Obama said, at first. That was when he was talking about changing things in very general terms, with no real details. Once the details started coming out, any hopes of him being the right person (IMO) disappeared. As a kid, I remember my dad asking "Is this the best we can get?" during every election campaign. This isn't a new problem and as bad as any White House (considered as that President's administration) is, it doesn't last for too long. However, this administration is the most extreme I can think of, from either side. FDR's administration wasn't even close to taking us to the brink of Socialism as this one. A government that wants to give the largest demographic what it wants them to believe they need is truly a bad thing. That government needs the largest group in its corner, so it can have as much longevity in office as possible to advance their agenda. When a party makes it possible for a large percentage of the population to get what it needs for basic survival without having to work for it, that group will never want to work again. England went through this in the '70s and '80s, and the difference in income between being "on the dole" and working was about 15%. The question "Why bother working if I'll make 85% of my wage?" is what kept many from working and that brought in large numbers of foreign workers. Sound familiar?

It's not the Federal government's duty to give people everything they need. It's their duty to keep our borders secure from foreign attack, whether it's terrorism, invading armed forces, economic or masses of unneeded immigrants. I say 'unneeded' because we don't actually need them. We already had enough unemployed people to do the jobs, if they had wanted to do them.

The "greater good" needs to be addressed and for those who can't care for themselves, someone needs to care for them. Does it need to be the Federal gov't? Not really but if one state becomes known for great care, it will become a haven. When that happens, the rest in that state are required to shoulder the burden and that's not fair to them. Now, this brings us to those who won't care for themselves. These people shouldn't be allowed to be a burden on anyone, IMO. They need to do things for themselves and not be the drain on society that they are. Governments that think they can provide everything for everyone are blind to the fact that large organizations are never efficient. Inefficiency wastes a lot of everything, whether it's revenue, material resources or through creating a society of people who won't try to do their best. When people don't care, government can't make it better. Throwing buckets of money at problems won't put the fires out.

 

[avaserfi]

All good points Andrew. As far as the constitution is concerned, I think it applies to all persons on American soil. I don't think that Guantanamo is considered American soil in which case the constitution has no legal standing, although I could be mistaken. AFAIK, all the detainees have access to legal counsel and have been scheduled to recieve a trial by military tribunal, being enemy combatants. During this public process, all will be revealed as to who recieved what treatment and why.

Detainees do not all have access to legal counsel from what I have read. In fact, many are tortured for days on end while being held without being charge. This state of limbo and use of international operational sites is dubious at best because of the circumvention of civil rights that are supposed to be granted to wartime prisoners by the Geneva Convention, our constitution and other treaties.

I see the argument that, perhaps, these individuals should not be given constitutional rights due to the situation, but I see this as problematic because of the torture issues and complete lack of rights given these prisoners. As soon as we imprison these individuals it becomes an American prerogative to treat them with respect while they are charged and held. Justice is not had through breaking our own laws. The code is there for a reason and should be followed. After all, there was a recent release of detainees who were never charged, tortured and released because they were found to be innocent. The lack of oversight and failure to follow law/protocol might make some safer at the cost of the safety of some innocence.

The argument is that for some reason we are better than the terrorists attacking us. Acts of torture, capture and holding without reason and removal of rights are in no way a sign of any superiority. They signify fear, lack of control and reason when our actual legal system is looked at.

I would argue that these are not the people that should be allowed to set foot on American soil and/or receive trial in the liberally biased American civilian courts.

I don't care where they are kept as long as their rights are not infringed upon and it is not a secret from the American people.

 

[Rickster71]

The same could be said about republicans and MSNBC, CNN or the media in general aside from Fox, of course.

Good post Andrew, I'd like to add a few thoughts to consider.

Regarding the replies to Dave's Fox News thread.
IMO the average TV viewer assumes the news is neutral, and has no agenda.
Due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of TV and print journalists are registered Democrats,(along with the owners of afore mentioned TV news , and print news outlets) it would be an added assumption to think they could overcome human nature and not let personal biases color their opinions.

A quick example: Below is a list of Democratic CNN anchors and correspondents who are covering the Democratic National Convention (there are no registered Republicans): CNN's new motto, "No bias. No bull."

Anderson Cooper is a registered Democrat.
Jeanie Moos is a registered Democrat.
Gloria Borger is a registered Democrat.
Jeanne Meserve is a registered Democrat.
Suzanne Malveaux is a registered Democrat.
Soledad O'Brien is a registered Democrat

Another assumption, is made of our system of education.
One thing that I remember about my college days, was the fact that all of my professors were Democrats, and frequently made the students aware of that fact. My 'one' sole Republican prof was in Macro Economics.
As the first Clinton vs. Bush election neared, the head of the Economics Dept would make the rounds, and interrupt the classes and speak of the myriad reasons to vote Democratic.

One other mistake that is frequently made is due to the public's lack of knowledge of the technique of "Marginalization."
Too many to list, though here is on most would know-
One obvious example: when sophomoric Howard Stern wrote his first #1 best selling book.
The New York Times ignored the book and refused to add it to their "Top Ten Best Seller" list.
Howard Stern was not Politically Correct enough for them. So, he was conveniently marginalized.

Fox news is the only right leaning TV news channel, and of course the are marginalized.

The many voters that get their news from The Comedy Channel's John Stewart Show(a registered Democrat), and Saturday Night Live, and the Colbert Nation.
Both very funny shows, though they are parodies of news with a bias agenda.
The show only marginalizes those they don't align with. Of course the voters that watch, never realize comedy news parodies are funny because it consists of a 'little bit' truth. It's not really the news.

I won't even touch upon how marginalization occurs in movies, and in commercials.

(I apologize for the rushed ramblings, my bride is calling me to finish making the stuffed pork loin.)
Regards,
Rick