U.S. Politics

Page 408 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Jeremiah said:
Well, the Southern Strategy and the concomitant rise of Conservatism was a huge "success."

Scott, tell me what Condoleeza's title was on 9/11. What happened on 8/6/01?

This could be enlightening but I have doubts about it penetrating.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/

Bottom line is yes, 9/11 was Rice's and GWB's fault.



Hard to believe but yes, that's what he's saying. :eek:



Yes, they were induced by fraud, and as we all know, fraud vitiates consent.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud+in+the+inducement

http://books.google.com/books?id=BwzukKczhSwC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=fraud+vitiates+consent+george+w.+bush&source=bl&ots=naIaBPCw-_&sig=okLY7iQCo4WnEmG-KkHZoqP1IYo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WP3FUe_0Noa29gST_ICgAg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=fraud vitiates consent george w. bush&f=false

Scott, tell me what Condoleeza's title was on 9/11.
I'm aware. So what?

What happened on 8/6/01?
The CIA told Bush that Al Qaida was going to fly airplanes into the twin towers and the pentagon.:rolleyes:

A better question would be why didn't Clinton pull the trigger in 1999? Yeah, we all make mistakes don't we Jeremiah? Uh, I mean except you, of course.

Bottom line is yes, 9/11 was Rice's and GWB's fault.
Bottom line is you haven't a clue what you are talking about. But it hasn't stopped you, so please carry on.

Hard to believe but yes, that's what he's saying.
You dont read well either?

Yes, they were induced by fraud, and as we all know, fraud vitiates consent.
Convenient political cover you provide for Hillary, et al.

Particularly Hillary. You do know her husband was POTUS for the prior 8 years, right? That she was somehow hoodwinked requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Parallel universe much? You're worse than Velo.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,172
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
...
Convenient political cover you provide for Hillary, et al.

...
sorry for the off topic question, but seeing her mentioned reminded me.

why do people hate hillary clinton with such vehemence? there seems have been a Hillary Derangement Syndrome ever since bill was president. i realize voters on both sides tend to not like each other (which is another thing that baffles me), but it seems as if she is especially loathed.

as first lady she had absolutely no power.

as senator she was quite middle of the road.

as secretary of state she was unremarkable.

i don't get.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,172
0
0
The Hitch said:
Her lies on how she risked her life to play some sort of Indiana Jones role in Bosnia running from gunfire and whatnot when film shows she had a quiet reception in a pacified airbase, should be enough for anyone.
by that standard every politician should be hated. politicians lie. about everything. all. the. time.
 
Scott SoCal said:
No chance. I actually use my brain.
Uh huh, so can you lay out some arguments aside from the great society one. My comprehension skills are fine, I'm not buying your claim about the creation of dependency class (I buy that aspect sure) as the causal trigger for the conditions you describe.
 
gregod said:
by that standard every politician should be hated. politicians lie. about everything. all. the. time.
Lying about what happened in battle is unacceptable. Ronald Reagan committed the same crime when he tried to say he was fighting The Nazis in Europe when he was actually just making a film about it. These are dispicable acts that should disqualify anyone from office and anyone who tries to tak advantage of other people's suffering to build sympathy and political power for oneself deserves to be hated. Not that that explains your question why hillary is hated by so many, rather why she should be hated by so many. The answer to the first is as with Reagan, partisanship. Same reason for why people love them.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
gregod said:
sorry for the off topic question, but seeing her mentioned reminded me.

why do people hate hillary clinton with such vehemence? there seems have been a Hillary Derangement Syndrome ever since bill was president. i realize voters on both sides tend to not like each other (which is another thing that baffles me), but it seems as if she is especially loathed.

as first lady she had absolutely no power.

as senator she was quite middle of the road.

as secretary of state she was unremarkable.

i don't get.
I don't hate her. In fact I used to wish she had beat BO in the primaries.

I'm more irritated at the pardon she gets for whatever she does by the sycophants. She voted to go to war. But somehow after being actively involved in Bill's administration for eight years she got duped into that vote. Gotta call BS on that.

Her stewardship at State isn't going to help her going forward either. Also, the "smartest woman on the planet" moniker endears her to almost no one.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
Uh huh, so can you lay out some arguments aside from the great society one. My comprehension skills are fine, I'm not buying your claim about the creation of dependency class (I buy that aspect sure) as the causal trigger for the conditions you describe.

That's okay. We will keep doing the same thing while expecting different results.

And to be clear, I'm not saying what happened in the mid sixties was all bad or is the only challenge facing the black (or any other) community. By many measures the great society and war on poverty has either had no impact or has actually been negative.
 
Scott SoCal said:
That's okay. We will keep doing the same thing while expecting different results.

And to be clear, I'm not saying what happened in the mid sixties was all bad or is the only challenge facing the black (or any other) community. By many measures the great society and war on poverty has either had no impact or has actually been negative.
Well let's be equally clear, I get your argument, but I think there are deeper and multiple historical reasons for what you're describing. Clearly the policies and ideals of that era are largely failed, but in the US context especially, I don't think it's a left/ right fix.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
Well let's be equally clear, I get your argument, but I think there are deeper and multiple historical reasons for what you're describing. Clearly the policies and ideals of that era are largely failed, but in the US context especially, I don't think it's a left/ right fix.
but I think there are deeper and multiple historical reasons for what you're describing.
I am not attempting to discount the history. That's why I'm only really looking at the late 1960's forward. The situation was bad (comparatively) but made worse. So one looks at what changed and its not that difficult to see.

I don't think it's a left/ right fix
The only real element of left/right is the racism accusation hurled at those that can see many aspects of welfare as less than effective. It would be nice to actually work towards improvements but that is nothing short of a pipe-dream.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,172
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I don't hate her. In fact I used to wish she had beat BO in the primaries.

I'm more irritated at the pardon she gets for whatever she does by the sycophants. She voted to go to war. But somehow after being actively involved in Bill's administration for eight years she got duped into that vote. Gotta call BS on that.

Her stewardship at State isn't going to help her going forward either. Also, the "smartest woman on the planet" moniker endears her to almost no one.
every politician has sycophants: reagan never raised taxes, bill didn't demean the office, bush fils (list too long), obama (list too long).

i haven't heard her called that, but why is it her fault if whoever dubbed her so was given to hyperbole? hyperbole is a pretty american trait.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
gregod said:
every politician has sycophants: reagan never raised taxes, bill didn't demean the office, bush fils (list too long), obama (list too long).

i haven't heard her called that, but why is it her fault if whoever dubbed her so was given to hyperbole? hyperbole is a pretty american trait.
Agreed.

It's not her fault on the hyperbole but its a turn off. The entire smart/ stupid thing is an easy identifier of sycophantic tendencies:)
 
Scott SoCal said:
I am not attempting to discount the history. That's why I'm only really looking at the late 1960's forward. The situation was bad (comparatively) but made worse. So one looks at what changed and its not that difficult to see.



The only real element of left/right is the racism accusation hurled at those that can see many aspects of welfare as less than effective. It would be nice to actually work towards improvements but that is nothing short of a pipe-dream.
Well right, racism as a politicized category is an effect of the expansionist state. In saying that, I mean that its usefulness pro or con is mostly past even if many believe otherwise.

At the same time you can't just take the 60s as a breakpoint, naturalize an ethnicity and say " things could have gone in one direction or the other." Humans are manifold constructs--not independent agents as free market theory would argue-- and they don't suddenly, and collectively transcend their milieu.
 
aphronesis said:
Well right, racism as a politicized category is an effect of the expansionist state. In saying that, I mean that it's usefulness pro or con is mostly past even if many believe otherwise.

At the same time you can't just take the 60s as a breakpoint, naturalize an ethnicity and say " things could have gone in one direction or the other." Humans are manifold constructs--not independent agents as free market theory would argue-- and the don't suddenly, and collectively transcend their milieu.
Put more reductively when humans (in this case as an identity group) are emarginated, they will be downcast. All the more so when it is a secular problem.

Scott hampers on about 60's liberal policy as not being an effective deterrent to ghettoization (let alone "rehabilitation"), and I actually don't disagree with that, though at which point does mainstream and affluent society stop treating the emarginated as the poor slobs or the merely criminal or pathetic? Moreover how much does the political-economic system work unremittingly against them? For that matter what has the conservative solution been, in light of this disadvantage (to which it pays no mind, however)? Create the conditions in which a man can help himself? Yet those conditions won't ever be realized, given that the liberal economic model they champion again works unremittingly against creating them.

Politicizing to make amends for segregation, in any case, in the absence of any real and not just politically correct humanity behind policy (or within the society even before that in the form of that dreaded volk nomenclature: solidarity, equality, community, etc.), is only treating the symptoms, but not the disease.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,354
0
0
The juicy bits from the Russ Tice interview.

Russ Tice:

Okay they went after - and I know this because I had my hands literally on the paperwork for these sort of things. They went after high ranking military officers. They went after members of congress. The Senate and the House - especially on the intelligence committees, and on the armed services committees and judicial. But they went after other ones too. They went after lawyers and law firms. Heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the supreme court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after state department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House - their own people! They went after anti-war groups. They went after US companies that do international business around the world. They went after US banking firms and financial firms that do international business.

They went after NGOs like the red cross and people like that that go overseas and do humanitarian work. They went after a few anti-war civil rights groups. So don't tell me that theres no abuse because I've had this stuff in my hand and looked at it. And in some cases I literally was involved in the technology that was going after this stuff. And you know when I said to olbermann (sp?). I said my particular thing is high tech and what's going on is the other thing, which is "The Dragnet". "The Dragnet" is what Mark Klein is talking about - the terrestrial dragnet. Well my speciality is outer space. I deal with sattelites and everything that goes in and out of space. I did my spying via space. So that's how I found out about this.

HOST:

Now Russ the targeting of the people that you just mentioned. Top military leaders, members of congress, intelligence community leaders and - I'm sorry it was intelligence committees. Let me that correct that - not "intelligence community". And then executive branch appointees. This creates the basis and the potential for massive blackmail.

Russ Tice:

Absolutely! And remember we talked about that before - that I was worried that the intelligence committee now has sway over what is going on. Now here's the big one. I haven't given you any names. This was in summer 2004. One of the papers that I held in my hand was to wiretap a bunch of numbers associated with a 40-something year old wanna-be Senator from Illinois. You wouldn't happen to know where that guy lives right now, would you? It's a big White House in Washington DC. That's who they went after. And that's the President of the United States now. And I could give you names of a bunch of different people they went after that I saw! The names and the phone numbers of congress. Not only the names but it looked like staff people too, and their staff. And not only their Washington office but back home intheir congressional offices that they have in their home state offices and stuff like that. This thing is incredible what NSA has done. They've basically turned themselves - in my opinion - into a rogue agency that has J Edgar Hoover capabilities on a monstrous scale on steroids.
Russ Tice said:
every domestic communication in this country, word for word, content, every phone conversation, every email — they are collecting everything in bulk and putting it in databases.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
So another "scandal" fizzles out.

http://www.boston.com/business/personal-finance/taxes/2013/06/24/new-irs-chief-inappropriate-screening-was-broader/EouWCeb1D4IhdADJyJr5yO/story.html

The Internal Revenue Service’s screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency acknowledged Monday. Terms including ‘‘Israel,’’ ‘'Progressive’’ and ‘‘Occupy’’ were used by agency workers to help pick groups for closer examination, according to an internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press.
Now can we concentrate on the real scandal, the existence of 501(c)(4)'s to begin with, and the Citizens United decision?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
So another "scandal" fizzles out.

http://www.boston.com/business/personal-finance/taxes/2013/06/24/new-irs-chief-inappropriate-screening-was-broader/EouWCeb1D4IhdADJyJr5yO/story.html

Now can we concentrate on the real scandal, the existence of 501(c)(4)'s to begin with, and the Citizens United decision?
Yep. Outlaw all public benefit groups. Hell, kill the charities too.:rolleyes:

How many groups with those names have come forward and accused the IRS of malfeasance? Just curious.

And, if this is so, it's a mystery why Ms. Lerner clammed up... and how the IRS called attention to themselves.... and why the IRS is basically refusing to defend their actions... and, and, and.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yep. Outlaw all public benefit groups. Hell, kill the charities too.:rolleyes:
Yes, 'cause getting rid of (c)(4)'s will outlaw all public benefit groups and kill all charities :rolleyes: You do understand the difference between (c)(3)'s and (c)(4)'s, right?

Why provide overtly political groups - left or right - donor non-transparency and tax-exempt status? Thanks to the most activist SC in history, Citizen's United provided the loophole that permitted groups to take advantage of (c)(4)'s and that's why the IRS felt the need to crack down. Now elections CAN be bought outright. Conservatives of all people should be outraged by that, eh? But no, not really, actually you're all for it.

How many groups with those names have come forward and accused the IRS of malfeasance? Just curious.
Google is your friend. Look up Progress Texas. The only group, liberal or conservative, that was denied status was a liberal group, btw. Even Karl Rove's groups were ok'ed in the end, and everyone understands what kind of BS that is.

And, if this is so, it's a mystery why Ms. Lerner clammed up... and how the IRS called attention to themselves.... and why the IRS is basically refusing to defend their actions... and, and, and.
And, and, and...well what, exactly? Turns out that liberal groups were targeted too, so there's no political angle. And if there's no political angle, what exactly do you have? An IRS swamped with 501(c)(4) applications that resulted in some employees taking ill-advised but necessary shortcuts, basically. Quite the scandal.

But like Solyndra, F&F, Benghazi, cons will invent a new one any day now.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
This is a real crossover post, and could just as easily have gone in the other topic. I'm posting it here because it does speak a bit more directly to US politics. Don't be put off by the cnn tag, this opinion is written by the Guardian's Simon Tisdall, who has a nice line in witticisms.

L'affaire Snowden has provided a glorious field day for all those "surrender monkey Commie pinko crypto-Marxist long-haired G8-loathing eco-friendly global-warming anti-free market anti-capitalist anti-McDonalds (anti-stereotype)" anti-Americans who just love to hate the "Land of the Free."

It's surprising how many of them there are these days.

Iran has a pithy catchphrase for it. It calls America the "Global Arrogance."

Or perhaps it's a "white man's burden" thing. That's the phrase the British used to morally justify their empire-building. They were doing good, or so they told themselves, annexing all those countries and subjugating their peoples.

Geopolitically speaking, Washington took over where London left off, post 1945. Except the US equivalent phrase is "right man's burden". That is to say, we (that's the imperial Washington 'we') are (always) right, and you (lesser mortals, sadly benighted) are (always) wrong.

The world watched this attitude play out in Afghanistan and Iraq (intervention to make America's streets safe) and now in Syria (non-intervention to make America's streets safe). Pity all those displaced and terrorised Middle Easterners, but hey, we fixed Osama didn't we?

Strange that sense of triumph over the killing of the 9/11 mastermind was not universally shared.

Extra-judicial assassination, drones, killer robots, extraordinary rendition, black ops, wet ops, psy-ops, silly ops... The world is a bit tired of all this American posturing, grandstanding, and self-serving banditry.

So now it's cyber-ops, but wholly unofficial, courtesy Mr E. Snowden.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/25/opinion/snowden-us-humilation/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Let's hear it for the neanderthals on the SCOTUS - another great leap backwards, if I understand the implications of this morning's ruling (happy to be set right by any legal eagles).

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/25/19133249-supreme-court-strikes-down-part-of-voting-rights-act?lite
But conservatives don't like an activist SC! Oh wait, yes, they do, if it means being able to crack down on minority voting rights. Easier to just prevent them from voting than, say, refashioning your policies and ideology to be more attractive to minority voters.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Yes, 'cause getting rid of (c)(4)'s will outlaw all public benefit groups and kill all charities :rolleyes: You do understand the difference between (c)(3)'s and (c)(4)'s, right?

Why provide overtly political groups - left or right - donor non-transparency and tax-exempt status? Thanks to the most activist SC in history, Citizen's United provided the loophole that permitted groups to take advantage of (c)(4)'s and that's why the IRS felt the need to crack down. Now elections CAN be bought outright. Conservatives of all people should be outraged by that, eh? But no, not really, actually you're all for it.

Google is your friend. Look up Progress Texas. The only group, liberal or conservative, that was denied status was a liberal group, btw. Even Karl Rove's groups were ok'ed in the end, and everyone understands what kind of BS that is.

And, and, and...well what, exactly? Turns out that liberal groups were targeted too, so there's no political angle. And if there's no political angle, what exactly do you have? An IRS swamped with 501(c)(4) applications that resulted in some employees taking ill-advised but necessary shortcuts, basically. Quite the scandal.

But like Solyndra, F&F, Benghazi, cons will invent a new one any day now.
Yes, 'cause getting rid of (c)(4)'s will outlaw all public benefit groups and kill all charities :rolleyes: You do understand the difference between (c)(3)'s and (c)(4)'s, right?
Yes I do. Tax deductibility of contributions is a big difference.

Hopefully you realize there are tons of (c)(4)'s out there doing great work in their communities and have exactly nothing to do with politics.

Then again, there's at least one (c)(3) heavily political, left of course, that somehow manages to keep their charity status. Can you guess?

Why provide overtly political groups - left or right - donor non-transparency and tax-exempt status?
Good question. You realize these groups didn't write the rules, right?

Thanks to the most activist SC in history, Citizen's United provided the loophole that permitted groups to take advantage of (c)(4)'s and that's why the IRS felt the need to crack down
On right wing groups. Finished your sentence for you.

Now elections CAN be bought outright. Conservatives of all people should be outraged by that, eh? But no, not really, actually you're all for it.
So you're against union money flooding the campaigns then, right? I mean, if you are to be consistent...

And, and, and...well what, exactly? Turns out that liberal groups were targeted too, so there's no political angle. And if there's no political angle, what exactly do you have? An IRS swamped with 501(c)(4) applications that resulted in some employees taking ill-advised but necessary shortcuts, basically. Quite the scandal.
Oh. So that explains why Lerner won't talk, why Miller essentially lied to congress as well as Shulman. No political angle. Riiiiiight.

But like Solyndra, F&F, Benghazi, cons will invent a new one any day now
Looks like your side is doing pretty well at inventing their own. Whaddya think about the lurid details of the Scandal at the State Dept? Kinda shows Hillary in a poor light in terms of management skills, eh? Benghazi.. "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT NOW MAKE?!?!" and then this
On Tuesday, Nicholas Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, said Clinton was completely unaware of any of the investigations mentioned in the Office of the Inspector General's reports and memos, including the case involving her personal security detail allegedly soliciting prostitutes.

"We learned of it from the media and don't know anything beyond what's been reported," Merrill told CNN in a written statement
Goddammm, where have I head that before?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/11/politics/state-department-allegations/index.html
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
But conservatives don't like an activist SC! Oh wait, yes, they do, if it means being able to crack down on minority voting rights. Easier to just prevent them from voting than, say, refashioning your policies and ideology to be more attractive to minority voters.
It's a huge conspiracy.

:rolleyes:
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 1
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS