Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[GlyphGryph]

Was the whole "GOP Asian Outreach group composed mostly of whites" thing posted here yet? Where the GOP has as part of their official policy decided to expand the definitition of Asian to include white Americans so its ok?

[Sheb]

Never heard of it. Link?

[palsch]

First likely result google spat out.

[misko27]

tumblr must have multiple field days with that party within the span of a single day

let's wait for the civil war to happen so the constitution is smashed into bits, something more modern is drafted up and the states aren't a bundle of knots animal or otherwise in regards to parties

hell at this point i'd be pleased with vermin supreme made an absolute monarch saudi arabia style

you probably wouldn't

but hey

* LordSlowpoke orders popcorn

Ok seriously, whenever people diss the Consitution as irrelevant, it doesn't offend me as an American, it screams ignorance.

I mean Jesus Christ Almighty, the Confederate consitution was actually literally the actual consitution, edited for States Rights + Slavery. Think about that, people going against everything it stands for, still embracing it. I mean the bloody LCS says they like the Consitution (when it's fixed of course). It's more American then a red, white and blue Bald Eagle singing the national anthem while flying around the Statue of Liberty on the Fourth of July.

Meh, the Left has always had a problem with in-fighting among different minority groups. It's fascinating reading about how the Socialist movement, Women's Suffrage movement and civil rights movements allied in the early 20th century, but the Socialists felt like the women should be more cheerleaders than activists, and the white women leading the suffrage movement really didn't care to have black women prominently featured in their rallies.

There is a certain danger that exists when activism is elite-driven, that it's not fully inclusive.
Of course, there is equal danger when activism is grassroots, that it can become unhinged mob mentality and prone to the darkest impulses of xenophobia, racism and know-nothingism.

Bah, Socialists, splitters. It's the People's Front of Judea that matters.

So Iraq has opened up some unpleasant questions for Obama: It's current government is oppressing the Sunni minority, and is currently fighting a violent wave (interesting thing I learned, there are only 3500 to 5000 ISIS fighterers leading the charge in Iraq. They're just that much better.) of SunnI extremists. We don't like the Maliki gov't very much, but we really don't like ISIS. So much that Obama is considering action, while being hammered by the GOP to use airstrikes (If Obama had said definitively at the begginning of that Chemical Weapons snafu that he would not intervene, they would've been rioting in favor). Of course he really, really does not want to go back into Iraq. But seeing Bagdad fall would be worse.

[Frumple]

... would it? Asking on behalf of what a fairly substantial portion of the country is probably thinking, why the hell is iraq imploding our problem? More importantly, how would we manage to intervene without fucking ourselves again with massive war debt?

E: I mean, don't get me wrong, if NATO or the UN or whatever decides to get together and do something, or Iraq goes and begs the world (with commensurate economic reparations to repay the cost of helping, because to hell with doing it for free right now) for help, I'd say let's join hands for a kumbaya-singing asskicking, but I'm pretty ruddy tired of playing (and paying for) international lone bloody ranger.

[mainiac]

Anyone else read ISIS and think of Archer?

[RedKing]

@Frumple: Sunk costs argument? After nine years and ~4500 US dead (and a few hundred thousand Iraqi dead and another couple hundred thousand US wounded).....it's almost unacceptable to let things go straight down the shitter within two years.

[Frumple]

Sunk costs argument tends to say "GTFO ASAP" not "Keep throwing good money after bad."

Least that's what I was hearing from business folks. If you've failed, get out, stop failing, and try somewhere/thing else. Don't keep failing the same bloody way. Company's borked, minimize damages and cut it loose. And if we've sunk a decade, thousands of our own lives, tens upon tens of thousands of other peoples lives, and freakishly huge billions of dollars into it only to have it go into the shitter two years later, it's time to own up and say we freaking failed, because that looks to me like a ruddy good indication of failure.

Personally, I'm more inclined to say some odd amalgamation of "Welp, we tried" and "Shouldn't have bloody been there in the first place". It's damned acceptable to stop meddling in other people's problems. And s'far as I'm concerned, until one of the international coalitions make it a problem, or Iraq bloody asks (with an assumption of costs tacked on), it's not our bloody problem now just like it wasn't our freaking problem to begin with.

[Culise]

Yep, that's why it's actually called "sunk costs fallacy."  It in itself isn't a valid line of argument, unless you can make the case that in continuing investment, you have some way to actually recoup or minimize your losses to a greater degree than simply ceasing investment.  Therein lies the issue.  One of the major preconditions that Obama reportedly made for active American aid to the Iraqi government is that al-Maliki actually make some outreach to the Sunni population, instead of systematically alienating them to such a degree that they think that ISIS is now the only way to make their voices heard.  Unless he can actually concrete steps to actually resolve the root causes of Sunni disaffection (and there are significant questions as to whether he even can, given the Shi'a militias that are now fighting side-by-side with the thoroughly-discredited state military), the same argument about our previous investment will be made in another few years when the next major Sunni uprising sweeps across their half the nation. 

Of course, we'll be no better off if ISIS wins or (more likely) forces a de-facto tripartite partition between Kurd, Sunni, and Shi'a; to tie it back to the thread topic, it's just a question of whether Americans are bleeding in Iraq or America.  That said, they won't learn if we cram democracy down their throats with a side-dish of small arms and a dessert of drone strikes.  We should have figured that out after the last ten years, if nothing else. 

[SalmonGod]

I'm going to +1 the "Shouldn't have bloody been there in the first place" notion.  Maybe the outcome wouldn't have been so bad if we had gone there with decent intentions, but it was quite obvious that any kind of benefit for the Iraqi people was a distant background concern to business interests.  It was all one big money-raining party for the defense industry, mercenaries, contractors, etc.  Every time we go near their country we make things worse, and we always come back on the dishonest premise of fixing the problems we made before.  If I were them, I wouldn't want us involved.

[mainiac]

First likely result google spat out.

Apparently Herbert Hoover was our nations first asian president.

[GlyphGryph]

And yeah, that's exactly what I was talking about.

[Duuvian]

I believe powerful countries have a duty to intervene within reason when mass executions are observed in foreign lands. To do anything less is to be complicit. What they don't have a right to do is occupy another country for years.

[GlyphGryph]

Two of Steve Stockman's staff resigned, then donated to his campaign the next day, then got rehired the day after. Here's his explanation of how this was all totally not illegal:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/steve-stockman-congressional-ethics

"At first blush I was pleased with their actions," Stockman wrote in his letter to OCE, referring to his staff members resignations. "But as I began thinking about the situation later that day, 12 February, I became what I would describe as mildly annoyed that they had presumed to take these significant actions of resigning without consulting me first to determine whether I would welcome the resignations . . . . After thinking about the matter and sleeping on it, on 13 February I asked both men to meet with me personally. I thanked them for their contributions and dedication, but told both that it would be my preference that they agree to return to federal service in my congressional office. I pointed out that since both had made the contributions at a time when they were not employees, the contributions were completely lawful and within their constitutional rights. I further argued that their having made such contributions could not render them ineligible for subsequent federal service . . . . I asked both to return to employment in my office, and both agreed. I then appointed both men to their positions at their previous salaries."

[misko27]

Well, speaking purely from a foreign policy standpoint, it could lead to that worst case scenario: a regional war (Their official name is "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which is bigger the Syria) which would be, in many different ways, terrible, and could eventually force the US to intervene anyway (Hell forget eventually, we have 35,000 troops in various nearby countries. Regional War means we will get involved); and deal a nasty blow to US iamge. From a political standpoint, it hurts Obama further and allows Republicans (including Rand "I'm a Libertarian when I want to be!" Paul, and Ted "Obama's Fault" Cruz.), and of course weakens Democrats hand in the midterms. And from a security standpoint, it would allow them to control an entire nation and act as a base for attacks (Do you remember when and why the Afghanistan War started? ISIS was kicked out of Al Queda) against the United States, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East. So yes, let me assure you, we'd would all like to not care (Obama chiefly), but Iraq falling is bad.

It seems increasingly likely that they will be pushed back though. They are beginning to stall, and there's a lot of Sunni militas joining the fight, and ISIL doesn't have many men to lose. Makes it Iran's problem then.

Two of Steve Stockman's staff resigned, then donated to his campaign the next day, then got rehired the day after. Here's his explanation of how this was all totally not illegal:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/steve-stockman-congressional-ethics

"At first blush I was pleased with their actions," Stockman wrote in his letter to OCE, referring to his staff members resignations. "But as I began thinking about the situation later that day, 12 February, I became what I would describe as mildly annoyed that they had presumed to take these significant actions of resigning without consulting me first to determine whether I would welcome the resignations . . . . After thinking about the matter and sleeping on it, on 13 February I asked both men to meet with me personally. I thanked them for their contributions and dedication, but told both that it would be my preference that they agree to return to federal service in my congressional office. I pointed out that since both had made the contributions at a time when they were not employees, the contributions were completely lawful and within their constitutional rights. I further argued that their having made such contributions could not render them ineligible for subsequent federal service . . . . I asked both to return to employment in my office, and both agreed. I then appointed both men to their positions at their previous salaries."

Well then. Honest mistake, could happen to anyone. lol