What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

For the same reason they play politics with appointments.

I don't like that Obama did it one bit, but I also have sympathy that the current GOP is being obstructionist for its own sake. The lesson here is that both sides can either make compromises to keep the peace and get the people's business done, or both sides can use obscure tactics to win Pyrrhic victories and deepen the distrust. After all, whatever President X can do to Congress Y, or vice-versa, President Y can do to Congress X, or vice-versa.

The question becomes this. The law was passed. The appointment is mandatory. Congress' recourse is to change the law. But, instead they block the appointment. And the Dems did it to when Bush was in office. Our system is over, it's done. We really have no government right now. All Congress and the President do right now is play games with how they can expand their power. Power that the Constitution supposedly outlined perfectly according to the GOP. It's a perfect document after all.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

The question becomes this. The law was passed. The appointment is mandatory. Congress' recourse is to change the law. But, instead they block the appointment. And the Dems did it to when Bush was in office. Our system is over, it's done. We really have no government right now. All Congress and the President do right now is play games with how they can expand their power. Power that the Constitution supposedly outlined perfectly according to the GOP. It's a perfect document after all.

I'll play devil's advocate here. There will always be reasonable differences over where the border of power is, and the judiciary is where those differences are settled. So we do still have government. It's just really slow. The alternative is to have people in government who work across the aisle and compromise and don't resort to lawyering every fracking thing. Historically that's been the case, but the GOP smoked their own supply of "Good vs Evil" and now they either won't (TPers) or can't (righties terrified of the TPers).

That won't last forever.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

I'll play devil's advocate here. There will always be reasonable differences over where the border of power is, and the judiciary is where those differences are settled. So we do still have government. It's just really slow. The alternative is to have people in government who work across the aisle and compromise and don't resort to lawyering every fracking thing. Historically that's been the case, but the GOP smoked their own supply of "Good vs Evil" and now they either won't (TPers) or can't (righties terrified of the TPers).

That won't last forever.

I keep hearing that we are a nation of laws. Can you honestly believe that is true anymore given what has been going on the last 10 years? Everything is decided in a court of law nowadays. Everything. We can't even get an appointment through Congress without using or manipulating or citing some sort of law precedence. It's not slow it's over. The question that should be asked in these debates are: What are you going to do when all your appointments are held up by the other party in the Senate? What are you going to do when the law that was passed is unenforceable because Congress won't allow you to appoint the head of it? And your answer cannot be reach across the aisle or change the tone in Washington. That **** don't fly anymore. What are you going to do?
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

I keep hearing that we are a nation of laws. Can you honestly believe that is true anymore given what has been going on the last 10 years? Everything is decided in a court of law nowadays. Everything. We can't even get an appointment through Congress without using or manipulating or citing some sort of law precedence. It's not slow it's over. The question that should be asked in these debates are: What are you going to do when all your appointments are held up by the other party in the Senate? What are you going to do when the law that was passed is unenforceable because Congress won't allow you to appoint the head of it? And your answer cannot be reach across the aisle or change the tone in Washington. That **** don't fly anymore. What are you going to do?

We have had periods of party warfare before. It's not a constant trend, it's a cyclic period.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

We have had periods of party warfare before. It's not a constant trend, it's a cyclic period.

Your optimism is admirable. Given the devastation that the Baby Boomers are leaving behind I don't buy it.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

This should feed the pout-rage of the day.

Even though everybody knew these "cuts" were coming, and anyway they are cuts only in the sense that spending will continue to increase ($660B this year alone), but slightly more slowly.

Let's all get ready for the Dolchstoßlegende rhetoric.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

This should feed the pout-rage of the day.

Even though everybody knew these "cuts" were coming, and anyway they are cuts only in the sense that spending will continue to increase ($660B this year alone), but slightly more slowly.

Let's all get ready for the Dolchstoßlegende rhetoric.

I would have thought national defense would require a certain introspection and thought, rather than your clever lefty dismissals. I guess I was wrong. Remember when Rumsfeld talked about going to war with the "army we have?" Lefties everywhere were shocked, shocked. Cuts are inevitable, we all understand that. But rather than rushing to the barricades to defend your candidate, why not take just a moment to actually think about it and ensure sure we make the right cuts? Getting it wrong could result in lots of needlesss deaths.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

way I heard was, Obama wants to boost the unemployment rolls by throwing 10,000 soldiers and their families out in the street, as well as surrender global leadership to China and Iran. :)
Can't be as bad as this guy... ;)

 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Apart from the noisy, unserious children, reductions in military spending are a serious matter from more than one perspective. Let's recall that in defeating the Third Reich we relied on the technology of the day to bury Germany. The Nazis created systems that represented eye popping advances: V-1, V-2, ME 262, Type XXI Electroboot, but they arrived too late and in insufficient numbers to make a difference.

Now it is the United States which relies on technology to defeat potential adversaries. Prompt Global Strike is a system under development which would give POTUS the ability to strike any target in the world within an hour. It will require the creation of a hypersonic vehicle which would be launched from CONUS and put no American lives at risk. In a hypothetical confrontation with DPRK, where they are threatening us or our allies with a new missile, and they've rolled that sucker out to a launch pad and appear to be fueling it, wouldn't it be nice to take it out with a conventional warhead, launched from our territory, without exposing any US personnel to death or injury? Cruise missiles would be effective, but too slow.

We are making tremendous progress in cyber-warfare. Think about the attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. And we have to be prepared for attacks by China and others. We must constantly look for ways to increase accuracy, stealthiness and effectiveness. All of which reduce the risk to GI's. And that ain't cheap. Think about the giant penetrator we've developed that will make deeply buried sites (Iran) vulnerable to annihilation.

Over the years conflicting domestic interests have caused us to spend too much on some weapons systems, occasionally on systems we don't even need. And we all have our favorite "3 thousand dollar toilet paper dispenser" stories. However, we should remember that DOD is the only department in the business of acquiring things, and very high tech things at that. And these systems require extensive testing. And the training of hundreds/thousands in their use and maintenance. That ain't cheap, either. And many systems which were controversial in the early days, have served us well for decades. Take the C-5A cargo plane, for instance. Cost overruns, failures, whistle blower testimony before congress. Yet, the Galaxy has been part of our inventory for many years and has more than justified its cost. Take the B-52. This plane has been in service since the 50's yet can still deliver lethal, butt kicking ordinance anywhere in the world, with extreme accuracy. It's life has been extended and mission changed, but the BUFF ("big ugly fat ********r") is still the greatest most feared bomber ever and is scheduled to remain in service another 30 or 35 years!

The threats are changing. We no longer expect Soviet tanks to come rolling through the Fulda Gap. Now we must focus on the growing threat from China as well as the continuing threat from Islamism, to name two. We must constantly upgrade and tweak both tactics and strategy. The extensive training and exercises are very expensive, but designed to make our forces ready to go and effective at a moment's notice.

All my life, some Americans have worried about the United States being the "policeman of the world." And have opposed our military at every opportunity. How many times have you heard the refrain: "I support a strong military, but. . ." And with far too many of us, there's always a "but." Always. Yet there can be no serious argument that the world is a safer, better place with the United States as the hyperpower.

Military planning on the scale that we engage in, is highly technical, hugely expensive and requires trying to anticipate what threats we'll face ten and twenty years down the road. We've made mistakes, but on balance our successes vastly outnumber our failures.

We cannot afford to get this wrong. And my suggestion is that instead of retreating to our default positions, we analyze the changes being suggested with an eye toward making good decisions and not scoring partisan points. Pete Seeger used to sing a tune about Andorra, which spent "four dollars and ninety cents on armaments for their defense. Did you ever hear of such confidence? Andorra, hip hurrah." As attractive as that may be to some of us, it's a prescription for disaster.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

The Emily Litella administration is shouting "never mind" at the top of its lungs. Never mind the previous arguments before the Supreme Court about what constitutes a "recess." And never mind the speeches in the Senate on this same topic, either. The smartest president in all 57 states essentially arguing here: "When I do it, it's different."
I think every President uses that quote.

And who can forget Harry Reid keeping the Senate in pro forma sessions to keep Bush43 from committing the crime of recess appointments? Hey, if you got the power, use it or lose it.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

I think every President uses that quote.

And who can forget Harry Reid keeping the Senate in pro forma sessions to keep Bush43 from committing the crime of recess appointments? Hey, if you got the power, use it or lose it.

Absolutely. Everything any president does is political. Always. Obviously some things are more political than others. These recess appointments are designed to show disappointed ultra libs he hasn't lost his mojo. And to set the stage for his Trumanesque narrative of standing up to the "do nothing" congress. It's good politics but bad governance. Let's see if the MSM commentariate calls him on it.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Apart from the noisy, unserious children, reductions in military spending are a serious matter from more than one perspective. Let's recall that in defeating the Third Reich we relied on the technology of the day to bury Germany. The Nazis created systems that represented eye popping advances: V-1, V-2, ME 262, Type XXI Electroboot, but they arrived too late and in insufficient numbers to make a difference.

Now it is the United States which relies on technology to defeat potential adversaries. Prompt Global Strike is a system under development which would give POTUS the ability to strike any target in the world within an hour. It will require the creation of a hypersonic vehicle which would be launched from CONUS and put no American lives at risk. In a hypothetical confrontation with DPRK, where they are threatening us or our allies with a new missile, and they've rolled that sucker out to a launch pad and appear to be fueling it, wouldn't it be nice to take it out with a conventional warhead, launched from our territory, without exposing any US personnel to death or injury? Cruise missiles would be effective, but too slow.

We are making tremendous progress in cyber-warfare. Think about the attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. And we have to be prepared for attacks by China and others. We must constantly look for ways to increase accuracy, stealthiness and effectiveness. All of which reduce the risk to GI's. And that ain't cheap. Think about the giant penetrator we've developed that will make deeply buried sites (Iran) vulnerable to annihilation.

Over the years conflicting domestic interests have caused us to spend too much on some weapons systems, occasionally on systems we don't even need. And we all have our favorite "3 thousand dollar toilet paper dispenser" stories. However, we should remember that DOD is the only department in the business of acquiring things, and very high tech things at that. And these systems require extensive testing. And the training of hundreds/thousands in their use and maintenance. That ain't cheap, either. And many systems which were controversial in the early days, have served us well for decades. Take the C-5A cargo plane, for instance. Cost overruns, failures, whistle blower testimony before congress. Yet, the Galaxy has been part of our inventory for many years and has more than justified its cost. Take the B-52. This plane has been in service since the 50's yet can still deliver lethal, butt kicking ordinance anywhere in the world, with extreme accuracy. It's life has been extended and mission changed, but the BUFF ("big ugly fat ********r") is still the greatest most feared bomber ever and is scheduled to remain in service another 30 or 35 years!

The threats are changing. We no longer expect Soviet tanks to come rolling through the Fulda Gap. Now we must focus on the growing threat from China as well as the continuing threat from Islamism, to name two. We must constantly upgrade and tweak both tactics and strategy. The extensive training and exercises are very expensive, but designed to make our forces ready to go and effective at a moment's notice.

All my life, some Americans have worried about the United States being the "policeman of the world." And have opposed our military at every opportunity. How many times have you heard the refrain: "I support a strong military, but. . ." And with far too many of us, there's always a "but." Always. Yet there can be no serious argument that the world is a safer, better place with the United States as the hyperpower.

Military planning on the scale that we engage in, is highly technical, hugely expensive and requires trying to anticipate what threats we'll face ten and twenty years down the road. We've made mistakes, but on balance our successes vastly outnumber our failures.

We cannot afford to get this wrong. And my suggestion is that instead of retreating to our default positions, we analyze the changes being suggested with an eye toward making good decisions and not scoring partisan points. Pete Seeger used to sing a tune about Andorra, which spent "four dollars and ninety cents on armaments for their defense. Did you ever hear of such confidence? Andorra, hip hurrah." As attractive as that may be to some of us, it's a prescription for disaster.

Simone: I know you're right, Pee-wee, but...
Pee-wee: But what? Everyone I know has a big "But...? C'mon, Simone, let's talk about *your* big "But"

Joking aside, well stated
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Absolutely. Everything any president does is political. Always. Obviously some things are more political than others. These recess appointments are designed to show disappointed ultra libs he hasn't lost his mojo. And to set the stage for his Trumanesque narrative of standing up to the "do nothing" congress. It's good politics but bad governance.

It's actually the opposite: bad politics but good governance. Bad politics because it plays into the Imperial Presidency meme. The GOP would use that meme no matter what he did, but in this instance they actually have a point so he's giving them ammunition. Good governance because the GOP was using obstruction to prevent the staffing of agencies which were legal and which they couldn't stop using legitimate legislative means, but which they don't happen to like ideologically.

The ultra libs left Obama long ago. His coalition for 2012 is pragmatic libs, the center, and any leaning conservatives who are freaked out / disgusted by the GOP field. (He loses the latter group if Romney wins the nomination, which is why an early winnowing of the ultra con field is better for the WH.)
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

I would have thought national defense would require a certain introspection and thought, rather than your clever lefty dismissals.
Right, whereas when you are lacking in introspection and thought, you're also not even clever.

There+is+a+difference.jpg


For the adults: the point, of course, is that a particular group (in this case, not even the right, but a warped subsection) has always wrapped itself in the flag and dipped itself in soldiers' blood whenever war spending is on the table, to protect its profits or to cloak its obsession with unending global expansion. Every empire has had these types, and America is no exception. Our resident Exhibit A didn't disappoint, proving the point by immediately retreating under the militarists' skirts and equating the logical evaluation of the development of weapons or the weighing of grand strategies as retreat, naivete, treason, the usual.

If the defense budget was 98% of the national budget, the army would still be lobbying for more and defense contractors would still be sponsoring think tanks articles about how we had a hollow navy or were emboldening our enemies. The fact that they do those things means, literally, nothing substantive: they are bureaucracies defending their rice bowls. The bottom line is this is unsustainable if we want to compete in the world:

military_spending_big.png


There will be an immense push back because this imbalance represents an enormous redistribution of wealth from the American taxpayer to a very small, very aggressive and politically savvy class of investors. But it's not about defense; it's about pork, and the political symbolism of military power that activates one slice of the ultra conservative base.

When we were rich we could afford to fob off a trillion here or there on them. We just can't afford that any more.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='512' height='340'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-5-2012/commission--impossible'>Commission: Impossible</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:512px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:405256' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

Kepler, I rest my case.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Right, whereas when you are lacking in introspection and thought, you're also not even clever.

There+is+a+difference.jpg


For the adults: the point, of course, is that a particular group (in this case, not even the right, but a warped subsection) has always wrapped itself in the flag and dipped itself in soldiers' blood whenever war spending is on the table, to protect its profits or to cloak its obsession with unending global expansion. Every empire has had these types, and America is no exception. Our resident Exhibit A didn't disappoint, proving the point by immediately retreating under the militarists' skirts and equating the logical evaluation of the development of weapons or the weighing of grand strategies as retreat, naivete, treason, the usual.

If the defense budget was 98% of the national budget, the army would still be lobbying for more and defense contractors would still be sponsoring think tanks articles about how we had a hollow navy or were emboldening our enemies. The fact that they do those things means, literally, nothing substantive: they are bureaucracies defending their rice bowls. The bottom line is this is unsustainable if we want to compete in the world:

military_spending_big.png


There will be an immense push back because this imbalance represents an enormous redistribution of wealth from the American taxpayer to a very small, very aggressive and politically savvy class of investors. But it's not about defense; it's about pork, and the political symbolism of military power that activates one slice of the ultra conservative base.

When we were rich we could afford to fob off a trillion here or there on them. We just can't afford that any more.

I think there is a lot of accuracy to what you have said above, maybe a bit of hyperbole here or there but I don't think that changes your point.

I would ask you to consider that groups like the one you mention exist in many facets of the political parties and government. The next group is just as committed to their ambitions and believe their view of the 'world' is correct.

Righties are less likely to notice the group you mention as being out of touch or misguided or will more closely align with it such that they will defend it against "liberal hand-wringers". There are groups that approach other issues, be it taxes, unions, education, govt programs, justice, etc. that demonstrate many of the same traits you describe...but maybe, just maybe, some of them are 'ok' in your book because their core mision doesn't differ that much from your core beliefs.

My point is that you, albeit elequently, often imply that only the right has narrow-minded, misguided people pursuing things that may not be in the best interest of the country in the long-term (if at all) and doing it in a manner that is neither accurate nor responsible.

I won't do the FYP version of this but I dare say that you have described a behavior that is consistent across both parties and the AARP is as zealous about SS as hawks are about military spending.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top