More Lemonade From Lemons

1. He's a bit naive about protecting the country from foreign threats, and there certainly are foreign threats.

Backyard terrorism - The US has been training terrorists at a camp in Georgia for years - and it's still at it

George Monbiot The Guardian,
Tuesday October 30 2001

"If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents," George Bush announced on the day he began bombing Afghanistan, "they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril." I'm glad he said "any government", as there's one which, though it has yet to be identified as a sponsor of terrorism, requires his urgent attention.

For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at al-Qaida's door.

The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whisc. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush's government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/30/afghanistan.terrorism19

Can also be read in the thread, The White Flag of Surrender at,

http://able2know.org/topic/123501-1

Quote:

1. He's a bit naive about protecting the country from foreign threats, and there certainly are foreign threats.

The only threats that the US faces are self induced ones. Immediately after 9-11, more than a few people who study US foreign policy remarked that they had quite a long list of who could have done it.

The CIA has long warned of blowback from the policies of numerous US governments.

Quote:

Backyard terrorism - The US has been training terrorists at a camp in Georgia for years - and it's still at it

George Monbiot The Guardian,
Tuesday October 30 2001

"If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents," George Bush announced on the day he began bombing Afghanistan, "they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril." I'm glad he said "any government", as there's one which, though it has yet to be identified as a sponsor of terrorism, requires his urgent attention.

For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at al-Qaida's door.

The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whisc. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush's government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/30/afghanistan.terrorism19

Can also be read in the thread, The White Flag of Surrender at,

http://able2know.org/topic/123501-1

I'm not even going to argue the point, since it's off topic. It's off topic because, even if it were true (which I do not concede), the US would still have to elect a president equipped to handle both our long term, and our short term security.

Quote:

I'm not even going to argue the point, since it's off topic. It's off topic because, even if it were true (which I do not concede), the US would still have to elect a president equipped to handle both our long term, and our short term security.

That's funny Brandon. So.. the new president can't be naive about foreign threats but it is off topic to bring up foreign threats that were probably caused by US action but aren't recognized by the current administration and the current GOP contender? I am unclear why we can only talk about one candidate being naive? Could you explain that to us Brandon?

Oh, I didn't realize making lemonade from lemons meant we should let your unfounded anxiety continue on completely disconnected from reality.

Now I know. Sorry to interrupt your pity party. Carry on with your wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I don't think an Obama election would be the end of the USA or life as we know it. I think that Mr. Obama is a decent and honorable man who wants what's best for America. I just think:

1. He's a bit naive about protecting the country from foreign threats, and there certainly are foreign threats.
2. He doesn't understand that while the average person must certainly be protected from unscrupulous practices by the rich and by business, it's simultaneously true that business has to be nurtured because the result will be a healthy economy and a strong country.
3. He departs from my ideas of right and wrong in some areas. It would be too time consuming to explain this in detail.

I don't think he'll destroy America, but I do think that with the best of intentions he might harm it in ways that don't become apparent immediately.

So.. what time of the day have you scheduled your suicide?

Or are you going to wait to see if there is a court challenge?

parados wrote:

So.. what time of the day have you scheduled your suicide?

Or are you going to wait to see if there is a court challenge?

This is the type of post one makes when one cannot argue the topic.

I feel like I should defend Brandon here. I think you both are giving him an unnecessarily hard time. He answered the question honestly. That's not cowardice. You seem to be berating him for answering it too seriously.

FreeDuck wrote:

I feel like I should defend Brandon here. I think you both are giving him an unnecessarily hard time. He answered the question honestly. That's not cowardice. You seem to be berating him for answering it too seriously.

He's a coward, because he refuses to apologize for intentionally calling Obama 'Osama' and then pretending that he didn't do it. It has nothing to do with this thread, but is a general indictment of his overall cowardice and unwillingness to own up to a baseless smear.

Cycloptichorn

Brandon9000 wrote:

I don't think an Obama election would be the end of the USA or life as we know it. I think that Mr. Obama is a decent and honorable man who wants what's best for America. I just think:

1. He's a bit naive about protecting the country from foreign threats, and there certainly are foreign threats.
2. He doesn't understand that while the average person must certainly be protected from unscrupulous practices by the rich and by business, it's simultaneously true that business has to be nurtured because the result will be a healthy economy and a strong country.
3. He departs from my ideas of right and wrong in some areas. It would be too time consuming to explain this in detail.

I don't think he'll destroy America, but I do think that with the best of intentions he might harm it in ways that don't become apparent immediately.

I want to bring us back to Brandon's post for a couple of reasons. One is that I think it is entirely reasonable. I have seen Brandon write some less reasonable things and so I don't think it makes sense to go after this one. The other reason is that I disagree with 1 and 2 (shocking!). On 1, I think he is not naive but that he sees the big picture -- something that the current administration, frankly, doesn't. But of course we wouldn't agree on this one. On 2, again, I think the facts don't bear out that characterization of his understanding. Did he not just propose a small business corporate tax cut yesterday?

Number 3 I cannot argue with, of course.

Okay, I didn't know that, but I recall that he proposes to lower taxes for the average guy and raise them for the wealthy. Why shouldn't successful people or the descendants of successful people be able to keep mosty of the money that they've made, if they or their ancestors made it honestly? Why try to finance the country by soaking the rich?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Okay, I didn't know that, but I recall that he proposes to lower taxes for the average guy and raise them for the wealthy. Why shouldn't successful people or the descendants of successful people be able to keep mosty of the money that they've made, if they or their ancestors made it honestly? Why try to finance the country by soaking the rich?

I don't think it's soaking the rich -- they would still be keeping most of the money they make. Obama is only talking about putting taxes back to where they were in the 90s. The people who would be affected didn't need the Bush tax cuts in the first place. I could just as easily say why try to finance the country by soaking the middle class? The fact is that the tax burden hits us harder proportionately than it does the super rich. If you make more than 95% of Americans, you can afford to pay a little more to safeguard your fortune. You have more to gain from improvements to the country and more to lose when it goes down the tubes. When the government comes to bail your firm out, you would see it as a good investment. (This is a hypothetical you, btw, as I don't imagine that much of anyone on this board would see a tax increase under Obama's current plan.)

But all of that aside, we've been on an 8 year spending spree and it's time to pay the piper. How do you think we are going to do that without raising taxes? And given that we will need to raise taxes (and cut spending), how should we do it? Who is able to pay an increase in taxes in this economy?

I'm not an expert on these things, but I am under the impression that the rich are already in a higher tax bracket. I could get behind closing loopholes, though, so that they actually are paying the tax associated with their bracket.

As to your question, everyone should have to contribute to national problems. We shouldn't act as though success required punishment.