Welcome To United States Of Theocracy Part One

@georgeob1,

Do you really think Bush had the respect of the world ( or even 49.9 percent of Americans)? I think if you check out how Obama was greeted when he travelled outside the US and compare it to how Bush was received you will have your answer. I haven't seen anyone aim a shoe at Obama.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

The economy might be different but the causes are the same except the players were different. In 1929 Wall Street Stock Collapse, ordinary people were buying stocks encouraged no doubt by shady stockbrokers on credit. Almost like a Ponzi scheme the first players made a pile of money but players after were caught as the corporations did not generate the profits or earnings to match the stock prices. There was a seesaw effect. Of course, there were the short sellers. A short sell was called and that precipitated the fall. The weight of the total debt caused many banks and stockbrokers to fail. Hoover did nothing. The Depression helped FDR become president in 1932. The effects of the Depression lasted till the beginning of WWII.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

It is a legitimate criticism of Obama, but ending torture by US personnel -- both CIA and military, is still "something".

Not if that had actually stopped during the Bush administration, which is how I recall things happening. He just changed the public debate about it, but in practice little is different in that regard from the end of Bush's reign.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Here are some things that Obama promised that I would like to see Obama have taken some action on; things that I think are significant changes, and things that I believe should have been able to be accomplished by now. I referenced/quoted Politifact.

Has any president in the history of the United States performed to your level of expectations then?

You've put the doorknob too high. Things require political capital, not just effort. He can't just manufacture political capital and there were some huge expenditures of political capital with the stimulus (which you don't think prevented a financial catastrophe, which I find absurd) and health care reform.

If he were a dictator doing all that in 9 months in this political climate would be easy. But in a democracy you need political capital to get things done, and political capital doesn't grow on trees. Neither does money for that matter, and that's another thing he had to spend a lot on due to the recession. I know you don't feel that way but just about any economist worth his salt does. When the stimulus became necessary a lot of programs were going to have to wait. We don't have unlimited money just like we don't have unlimited political capital.

1 Reply

@Bi-Polar Bear,

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

It IS possible to make huge sweeping changes on a dime. Bush did it. they were all fucked up but nonetheless he's the proof it can be done.

Bush was handed a huge amount of political capital through 9/11. Without that he would simply not have been able to change a tenth of what he was able to. It isn't because he was such a go getter, it was because he was handed a "trifecta".

You guys really don't seem to get how this works. Two wars and a monster recession from the previous administration isn't an easy gig to start with. And you don't seem to be appreciating how much political capital went into heading off the recession.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Sorry but I can't buy this apologism for torture. This isn't some political program he can't get around to doing. This is torture ongoing in our name. This is something he emphatically said we'd stop doing but we have not done so.

He's done little more than lie about it. You give him way too much credit. If you excuse him for this because of "CIA blowback" then you might as well pardon Bush for it too. He had a lot more pressure due to the fear after 9/11 of another such attack and would have faced much more "blowback" as well. If you forgive Obama for it you have no grounds to criticize Bush for it.

You are rationalizing his ongoing support for torture while touting his duplicitous speeches about how he's going to put an end to it. This is mind-boggling mental gymnastics to me.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

and you don't seem to understand that I'm not talking about fact I'm talking about PERCEPTION and it's result.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Out of interest I saw F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel in a bookstore and bought the paperback version of 'The Great Gatsby'. I bought the DVD too - starring Robert Redford, Mia Farrow, Karen Black and Bruce Dern. It reflects the Roaring Twenties quite accurately. It was also the era of Al Capone. There was plenty of money everywhere. But they spent it all on parties and speakeasies. So the bootleggers from Canada were making a lot of money like the Bronfmans. They got very rich. If they had bought shares in the Bronfman distilleries the stockmarket might not have crashed (just joking!).

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Some of those items may have expended political capital, but a lot of them wouldn't have (increased funding for the troops, fully funding the VA) and would probably even had conservative support.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

I'm only saying it might be a bit unrealistic to expect Obama to undo the torture policies of not one but two presidents in the space of 9 months.

REALLY?!? You think 9 months isn't enough time for Obama to say "Hey, you know that rendition deal that we've got going on? I think I'd like you to stop that."

I believe that's solely within the president's power to make that decision, and if he wanted to do it, he could have (many times).

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
It is a legitimate criticism of Obama, but ending torture by US personnel -- both CIA and military, is still "something".

Not if that had actually stopped during the Bush administration, which is how I recall things happening. He just changed the public debate about it, but in practice little is different in that regard from the end of Bush's reign.

Ok, if that's true. But I recall he made some things official, like having the army field manual be the guide for both the CIA and the military. Admittedly, I haven't checked my memory with google. Then there is also the prosecutions of CIA officials, which I have some problems with (mainly that they don't go far enough) and which are not really within his power, but as long as we're throwing everything in the same sink...

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Sorry but I can't buy this apologism for torture.

Would you mind quoting the "apologism" part, or whatever part you are interpreting as apologism?

Quote:

This isn't some political program he can't get around to doing. This is torture ongoing in our name. This is something he emphatically said we'd stop doing but we have not done so.

Yes, and when he said he would stop it, did you think he was talking about rendition? When the human rights community really (rightfully) started freaking out was when Bush put into place policies where our people tortured and seemed to be making the case that it was legal. The Abu Ghraib photos, the missing CIA docs, the stories about German citizens being kidnapped and taken to Afghanistan to be tortured -- those are the kinds of things people expected him to correct. Rendition has been going on for a very long time, and while evil, there wasn't a lot of pressure on the government to correct it.

Quote:

He's done little more than lie about it. You give him way too much credit. If you excuse him for this because of "CIA blowback" then you might as well pardon Bush for it too. He had a lot more pressure due to the fear after 9/11 of another such attack and would have faced much more "blowback" as well. If you forgive Obama for it you have no grounds to criticize Bush for it.

You are rationalizing his ongoing support for torture while touting his duplicitous speeches about how he's going to put an end to it. This is mind-boggling mental gymnastics to me.

Really, that's some rather mind-boggling mental gymnastics on your part. I "forgive" Obama for not fixing everything 9 months, and for picking the low hanging fruit first. I'm willing to wait and see. You're reading way too much into it.

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Yes, and when he said he would stop it, did you think he was talking about rendition? When the human rights community really (rightfully) started freaking out was when Bush put into place policies where our people tortured and seemed to be making the case that it was legal. The Abu Ghraib photos, the missing CIA docs, the stories about German citizens being kidnapped and taken to Afghanistan to be tortured -- those are the kinds of things people expected him to correct. Rendition has been going on for a very long time, and while evil, there wasn't a lot of pressure on the government to correct it.

My interpretation of maporsche's accusation was that Obama hadn't done anything to address or correct "extraordinary rendition". It was the "he hasn't done anything" accusation that I felt was deserving of defense because of the short time he's been in office, but it turns out that's not the case. (It also turns out I was wrong about him not specifying rendition when he vowed to end torture.) I started another thread to explore this more in detail as this one is probably not the right place.

0 Replies

@Bi-Polar Bear,

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

and you don't seem to understand that I'm not talking about fact I'm talking about PERCEPTION and it's result.

I saw that, I'm arguing that the perception is wrong.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Would you mind quoting the "apologism" part, or whatever part you are interpreting as apologism?

I consider it apologism for you to be rationalizing his duplicitous position on torture by saying that he faces CIA pressure and "forgiving" him for not getting around to stopping torture in our name.

If those excuses are fit for Obama then upon what basis do you criticize the Bush admin's torture? He faced pressure too.

Torture is the kind of thing that I expect more moral clarity about. It's not the kind of thing that I find excuses of any kind acceptable for. So when you start excusing Obama for talking loudly about how we aren't going to torture anymore but still allowing torture in our name it smacks me as being an incredible rationalization.

Quote:

Yes, and when he said he would stop it, did you think he was talking about rendition?

This is the kind of thing you have to believe is right or wrong and not try to find gotchas where you can talk tough about how torture is not morally acceptable while asking others to do it for you.

Quote:

Really, that's some rather mind-boggling mental gymnastics on your part. I "forgive" Obama for not fixing everything 9 months, and for picking the low hanging fruit first.

And I find this apologism absolutely astounding. Torture isn't the kind of thing that you are supposed to forgive people for not getting around to stopping. Especially when they talk boldly about how it's morally unacceptable.

I find it absolutely shocking that you are fine with forgiving Obama for just not finding the time and strength to stop torture in our name while making duplicitous statements about how morally unacceptable it is.

It's either morally acceptable or it isn't. Let's make a parable. If I were the new principal of a school where teachers were abusing the students and I say that it's morally unacceptable but tolerate some of the abuse for 9 months would you accept the excuse that there hasn't been enough time to stop it, and that the "blowback" from the teachers who like it makes it something to "forgive" and be patient about?

There are some things I just expect a lot more moral clarity about than that. Torture is one of them.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I consider it apologism for you to be rationalizing his duplicitous position on torture by saying that he faces CIA pressure and "forgiving" him for not getting around to stopping torture in our name.

I'd still like a quote as I believe you misunderstand me, though admittedly part of that is due to my own misunderstanding, as explained above. I wasn't aware of the announcement in August (nor was it mentioned here) as that month is a news blackout for me (back to school here.) What I thought I was arguing is that the president can't be expected to address everything in a meaningful way in 9 months. I was not aware that he had, in fact addressed it and had made a conscious decision to continue it. But I think calling me an apologist is inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

I'd still like a quote as I believe you misunderstand me, though admittedly part of that is due to my own misunderstanding, as explained above.

Throughout this conversation I've quoted everything you've said about this. I don't see any reason to go back and do it again. That you are making excuses for why Obama hasn't stopped the torture isn't in question, and I find that to be apologism.

But if you want me to jump through this hoop here is a quote. You said that you are "defending the absence of action" on torture.

I, in turn, can't accept the defense of absence of action on such things. If a teacher allowed your kid to be tortured (by other students), and just didn't get around to stopping it in 9 months due to political concerns would you accept the absence of action as forgivable?

If not, why are you willing to accept it for other people's children?

Quote:

But I think calling me an apologist is inaccurate and unnecessarily inflammatory.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think that making excuses about CIA "blowback" for Obama not getting around to stopping the torture he says is morally unacceptable is highly inflammatory.

I just don't consider pressure from the CIA a legitimate excuse for not stopping something unconscionable. You say you forgive Obama for not fixing everything in 9 months but this is the kind of thing that if you believe in is an urgent priority and that doesn't take 9 months to get around to saying no to. And it's the kind of thing that no amount of "blowback" justifies.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I, in turn, can't accept the defense of absence of action on such things.

Ok. I think that's about as far aw we are going to get. I understand this and can certainly accept it. But I reject being called an apologist for rendition simply on the basis that I'm cutting the president some slack in his first year. That's really what this all boils down to. You can't cut him some slack in this area and I can (even though, once again, I was defending him on a false assumption that he was working on stopping it). You extrapolate from there to a place of absolutes and I can't join you there.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

But I reject being called an apologist for rendition simply on the basis that I'm cutting the president some slack in his first year.

As I've already said, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I too don't think we can get any further on this subject. As I've said elsewhere, "it indicates that you just don't think that the torture is important enough to immediately address and this represents a level of acceptance of torture that I don't find acceptable."

If you feel differently then we just have irreconcilable positions on the matter.

0 Replies

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

(I've posted the link before - still like it - check in on it occasionally - check out some of the details on factcheck.org once in a while - interesting little aid)

edit

while I'm at it

updates on Joe Murrican thinking
http://patchworknation.csmonitor.com/

0 Replies

Welcome To United States Of Theocracy Part One

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know