Brainwashing Propaganda, or Morality Lesson?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Obviously, he's an incompetent, hypocritical liar who is betraying the electorate, his country, and the principles he once claimed to stand for. The sooner he is run out of office, the better.

You really need to set off sarcasm with some kind of delimiter, otherwise somebody may think you're serious. And agree with you! :wacko:

--Pete

[kandrathe]

He has actually set up a plan for withdrawing the troops. I believe the end date is August of 2010.

What do you think the probability is that they will actually draw down troops in Iraq to zero on that time table?

[eppie]

It's not beyond the pale for discussion, or "unacceptable" in the sense that you're not allowed to post it. But much of what comes out of Fox is unsubstantiated, hysterical, and spun all to hell. You're probably going to get told as much every time you use Fox as your basic source. If you're happy to pay that price of admission, then by all means, go ahead.

If you're more interested in a discussion of an interesting issue, then you might want to at least find something in addition to the Fox material from a different source that does not share the same biases. That way, it's easier to tell that there's some meat on the bones of the topic, rather than one-sided material that (more often than not) is little but propaganda.

-Jester

Meat, I think Jester phrased it better. Of course I don't want (and can't) keep you from posting what you want but to get a serious discussion these Fox news flashes wont help.
Sorry but I always get a tad grumpy when I read 'fox news' anywhere.;)

[--Pete]

Hi,

What do you think the probability is that they will actually draw down troops in Iraq to zero on that time table?

Better than if it were in the hands of someone who was willing to stay for a hundred years.

--Pete

[Jester]

What do you think the probability is that they will actually draw down troops in Iraq to zero on that time table?

To zero? Zero. The plan is to leave some residual force there, presumably to keep their mitts on key assets and protect that gargantuan embassy they're building. (In fairness to McCain, it was probably to this kind of residual force that his much-maligned "100 years" comment was referring.) The maintenance of multiple military bases all over the country is unacceptable, and I'm not sure what their eventual fate will be. Hopefully dynamite and bulldozers.

We'll see what actually happens. I would like to see no more than a token number of US troops there (say, less than 5,000), but I think convincing the Pentagon of that is not easy. However, the current number of troops is something like 150,000, many in major combat roles. The plan is to reduce that to maybe 30,000 by 2010, to be used for training and anti-terror operations, and then finally to complete the withdrawal of combat troops by 2011. That sounds to me like a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, one that is entirely within Obama's (first) term as president. A little slow for my liking, but I'll settle for a slow end to the war versus no end.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

A little slow for my liking, but I'll settle for a slow end to the war versus no end.

What I gather from what you are saying then is that the war ended a long time ago and the US has an extended police force there now. Even if you measure it by the yard stick of "combat operations", then we were done in June 2008 (as announced by Al Maliki).

Do you believe then the extended police force might draw down by 2011, and it might draw down to perhaps German levels (~50,000). Or, do you think it might draw down to British or Italian levels of about 10,000? Balkans (1200)? Korean (25,000)? Japan (30,000)?

After all the campaign rhetoric and posturing is over, what is clear to me are; 1) The war ended soon after the tanks drove into Baghdad, but a cadre of people who are anti-military frame the debate as if Saddam's phoenix will rise from the ashes, or that the Iraqi people will suddenly radicalize simultaneously and attempt to forcibly eject US forces. 2) The question of the our role in continuing to police the world, which is extremely expensive, and usually contrary to US domestic interests, is never on the table for debate. 3) There is no "Change" and there is no "Hope" of a change in the US policy of policing the planet.

What our government soft shoes around is the reality of what happen in these "wars" is that we engage in a process; 1) crush the opposition with superior force and technology, 2) pacify the population, 3) police until civilian authority is restored, 4) remain to insure long term security and as a base for further expeditions.

[Vandiablo]

And? Your contribution to conversation is...? Glee?

Mirth at your outrageous statement about Georgie being unpampered. I was pretty sure Jester would answer it better than I, and I was right. But I couldn't let it pass without laughing.

And, the logic here is...? Because Newt's influence from a decade ago when he was in Congress had such persistence? You might as well blame the Beatles while you are at it.

Oh it was so so long ago was it? The deregulation of the stock market and of ownership rules done in 1998 didn't have anything to do with the bad practices that followed, eh? The credit crunch happened all by itself then. The greed of "we could be making even more money if we didn't have these old post-1929 rules to follow" had nothing to do with anything, I'm sure.

Then Reagan... Yes, everything was peachy (Georgian in fact) until Reagan screwed it all up back in the 80's? It must have been the "Just say no" thing that totally screwed up the economy.
We lost out on 30 years of weed taxes.

The idea already existed, I'm sure, but Reagan popularized "trickle-down", which basically means "what's good for the wealthy is good for the country" (sim to the car company). You know what I'm talking about: the idea that the wealthy, if given tax breaks and conditions favorable to them, will share their wealth by creating jobs and stuff that benefit everyone else. Maybe in an ideal world, where there's no such things as offshore accounts, slumlords, and foreign sweatshops. Trickle-down is behind almost everything in GOP from tax policy to labor laws to environmental policy. To many, trickle-down is a universal truth that even questioning it is ridiculous. There may be some truth to trickle-down, but the GOP goes too far.

The real leader would have told people straight up that the government screwed up

...and we're not blaming who screwed up? just "the government"?

by A) letting the housing bubble get out of control,B)pressuring banks to offer sub-prime lending, C) engaging in endless frivolous unproductive spending, weak trade negotiations, repressive regulations, and anti-business legislation sapping their nations competitiveness, driving the bulk of industry off shore, and D) not paying down the deficit while the sun was shining.

Mostly I agree, except for the anti-business legislation part. The safeguards we place on employment are "anti-business" in that they don't allow exploitation. It is a travesty that most of the crap that people buy is made by people paid starvation wages (if they're paid at all) and that often there isn't even a choice to buy more responsibly. Many "business" people are only too eager to pay "market" wages (peanuts) rather than "value-added" wages. We shouldn't allow trade that promotes exploitation but in the name of "fair trade", we do. And that's "pro-business", ugh.

My son wants me to add a smilie. :)

The past 10 years or so of "productivity" in the US economy were due to first the illusory tech bubble, and then the illusory derivatives bubble due to housing.

... and derivatives were allowed by who, and when?? (Hint: starts with 1 ends with 8)

Real growth can only come when we transform from being consumption driven, to being production driven. And, if you are truly "GREEN", then you wouldn't want to push consumption as the economic engine either.Or, do what we usually do, start another war.

So let's start making things! Like fuel-efficient cars, wind turbines, solar cells, etc.

Have a good weekend, it's beautiful here and I need to be outdoors. My son wants another smilie. B)

[kandrathe]

Mirth at your outrageous statement about Georgie being unpampered. I was pretty sure Jester would answer it better than I, and I was right. But I couldn't let it pass without laughing.

Ah, ok. Good for Jester. He was correct in that Bush enjoyed a brief sunshine period until about a month after 9/11, when the tech bubble burst, and then the blame game started.

Oh it was so so long ago was it? The deregulation of the stock market and of ownership rules done in 1998 didn't have anything to do with the bad practices that followed, eh? The credit crunch happened all by itself then. The greed of "we could be making even more money if we didn't have these old post-1929 rules to follow" had nothing to do with anything, I'm sure.

History is best when you invent it yourself. The unregulated market artifact that was the genesis of the current crisis was the Credit Default Swap. <blockquote>"Forms of Credit Default Swaps had been in existence from at least the early 1990s, but the modern Credit Default Swaps were invented in 1997 by a team working for JPMorgan Chase. They were designed to shift the risk of default to a third party, and were therefore less punitive in terms of regulatory capital. The first CDS involved JPMorgan selling the credit risk of Exxon to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development. Credit Default Swaps became largely exempt from regulation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which was also responsible for the Enron loophole."</blockquote>I recall that Bill Clinton was the President during the passage of that legislation that resulted in the Enron debacle, and now this one. But, to be fair, it was a Republican controlled congress and a bi-partisan cluster flock.

There may be some truth to trickle-down, but the GOP goes too far.

I never liked the term anyway, it always makes me consider where my water supply is coming from, and in that case I don't want to be trickled upon by the wealthy. I like my model better, where it is the people who get to trickle on the government. Let them be on the bottom, serving us. We'll pay them when they start doing a good job. I like that idea, Congress will only get paid when their job approval rating is above 50% (currently at 29%).

...and we're not blaming who screwed up? just "the government"?

100 Senators + 435 Representatives + their aides produce piles of crap that the President should more often than not veto.

And that's "pro-business", ugh.

I just don't think you can force businesses to be nice, or be fair. The unscrupulous will find ways around it, or outright break the laws (e.g. sweat shops in LA), and the law abiding businesses who have to compete for good labor are crushed under the yoke of regulations. I think there is a reasonable middle ground. Product awareness through the internet is growing, and will be even more critical in the future as RFID and mobile computing allow shoppers instant assessments of their buying choices. I might not be so quick to grab that Nestles Quick if I knew it was made by African children kept as slaves.

... and derivatives were allowed by who, and when??

See above. Short Answer: The rulers (power brokers on Wall Street and their kept politicians).

So let's start making things! Like fuel-efficient cars, wind turbines, solar cells, etc.

I'm not opposed as long as the econometrics show it to be net productive. I'm tired of novelty items being sold as ecologically friendly. Naw, mostly they are just another waste of resources marketed to people who want to feel green.

For your son --:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . protect that gargantuan embassy they're building.

That's a legacy from Vietnam -- we learned the necessity of having an embassy with multiple helipads. :huh:

--Pete

[Jester]

What I gather from what you are saying then is that the war ended a long time ago and the US has an extended police force there now.

If you gathered that from what I'm saying, then there must be a disconnect on either what I said, or what you heard.

There is an army the size of Napoleon's sitting in a country, engaged in killing-and-being-killed on a regular basis in a foreign country. That's not "police". That's "a war". However, if the US were to both dramatically reduce it's troop levels, and move out of direct combat operations, then things would be different. Maybe not ideal, but certainly more to my liking than what's currently going on.

Even if you measure it by the yard stick of "combat operations", then we were done in June 2008 (as announced by Al Maliki).

And you lost 215 soldiers since then in unfortunate non-combat accidents? That's more than in the initial invasion.

Do you believe then the extended police force might draw down by 2011, and it might draw down to perhaps German levels (~50,000). Or, do you think it might draw down to British or Italian levels of about 10,000? Balkans (1200)? Korean (25,000)? Japan (30,000)?

The plan is to draw down to somewhere around those levels by 2010. How far the eventual number will be I can't guess, I'd wager over 10,000, but under 50,000. But even if you kept (say) 30,000 troops there, that would still be an 80% withdrawal.

However, I'd like to see the US bring its troops back from most of the places they're stationed in the world. There isn't any good reason, to my mind, for the US to still be camped out in Germany. Korea, maybe.

After all the campaign rhetoric and posturing is over, what is clear to me are; 1) The war ended soon after the tanks drove into Baghdad, but a cadre of people who are anti-military frame the debate as if Saddam's phoenix will rise from the ashes, or that the Iraqi people will suddenly radicalize simultaneously and attempt to forcibly eject US forces.

Have you been watching the same war I have? The one where the about 97% of US deaths (about 4k) happened after the fall of Saddam? The Iraqi people, or at least pretty large segments of them, have been trying to "forcibly eject" the US for about six years now. What do you think all those car bombs are? What Sadr City is, and why they keep fighting over it?

2) The question of the our role in continuing to police the world, which is extremely expensive, and usually contrary to US domestic interests, is never on the table for debate.

It should be. But, then, some of us actually opposed this silly war. Others, as I recall, didn't.

3) There is no "Change" and there is no "Hope" of a change in the US policy of policing the planet.

Aha, I see what you did there. Turning the Obama slogan around, to subtly imply that he's just like Bush. Except that he didn't start the Iraq war, and opposed Bush when he did. We'll see what happens when the next war opportunity comes around, but I know I sleep more soundly knowing it's Obama, and not Bush, calling the shots (nominally, not that Bush ever really called the shots.) I know the vast majority of the world of the world agrees.

-Jester

[eppie]

It should be. But, then, some of us actually opposed this silly war. Others, as I recall, didn't.

-Jester

:D

[Jester]

Not sure where to put this, but this seemed like a good spot.

Van Jones has resigned from his position as green jobs Czar.

I'm disturbed by the ideological straightjacketing, but I can't say I'm sad to see another 9/11 truther drop out of power. Clearly, a man with a lot of energy, a lot of ideas, and not quite enough judgement to make them work smoothly together.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'm disturbed by the ideological straightjacketing, but I can't say I'm sad to see another 9/11 truther drop out of power. Clearly, a man with a lot of energy, a lot of ideas, and not quite enough judgment to make them work smoothly together.

I'm also conflicted. I stand against his acts and attitudes exhibiting poor judgment from his past, but I'm always willing to see what a person brings to the present. He has done nothing in his current position as Green Jobs Caesar to warrant being asked to resign, and it's a bit ironic that the "Jobs" guy loses one.

[Vandiablo]

but I can't say I'm sad to see another 9/11 truther drop out of power.

So can we say that people who go for inane conspiracy theories shouldn't be in positions of power?

So no birthers, deathers, secret-muslimers, and indoctrinators!

Since that covers 90% of the GOP in my state, we can now paint everything blue!

-V

[Vandiablo]

Ah, ok. Good for Jester. He was correct in that Bush enjoyed a brief sunshine period until about a month after 9/11, when the tech bubble burst, and then the blame game started.

Okay, let's assume what you say is true. Then the "sunshine period" that Bush got was over a month longer than Obama's time so far. So you cannot say Obama got a pass that Bush did not, until a month and a week from now. Which you will. But now we know you say it whether it's true or not.

Now, the ridiculousness of your original statement comes from the fact that Bush never had questions from the press. Unless, the questioner was first screened for "loyalty". Bush hid out in the members-only town halls his entire presidency. The kind that the GOP is still doing. As for the Democrats, you can see from the questions they get, many of the Democrats are not doing such vetting.

Anyway, so maybe Bush didn't receive a break from the MSM, but his handlers made sure he never came in contact with them.

History is best when you invent it yourself.

We've seen some of that recently -- someone makes up a narrative then posts links that seem to back up the narrative, although the fine print counteracts the narrative. I think Jester was pointing this out recently.

The unregulated market artifact that was the genesis of the current crisis was the Credit Default Swap. <blockquote>"Forms of Credit Default Swaps had been in existence from at least the early 1990s, but the modern Credit Default Swaps were invented in 1997 by a team working for JPMorgan Chase. They were designed to shift the risk of default to a third party, and were therefore less punitive in terms of regulatory capital. The first CDS involved JPMorgan selling the credit risk of Exxon to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development. Credit Default Swaps became largely exempt from regulation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which was also responsible for the Enron loophole."</blockquote>

Durn, you made me look up the names. I was talking about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which basically removed the restriction between investment banking and commercial banking. Perhaps this led to the ability for CDS, I dunno, so maybe we are agreeing more than disagreeing.

I recall that Bill Clinton was the President during the passage of that legislation that resulted in the Enron debacle, and now this one. But, to be fair, it was a Republican controlled congress and a bi-partisan cluster flock.

Yep, I remember the 1994-and-beyond GOPers saying it was Congress that ran the country, not the White House. That's the opposite of what they said from 1981 to 1992, but don't call them flip-floppers, that's those other people.

So whose idea was this deregulation? Was it Clinton's? No. He should have vetoed it, in retrospect. But I think he actually bought into deregulation of financial stuff. Remember, he felt himself to be a centrist. Also, to veto would make it look like he was retaliating for the pizza girl investigation.

My my, that was back in the days where there was some bipartisanship.

So... unless you can do better, I am keeping my blame of GOP leadership in the late 1990's, as this was the force that was pushing this deregulation.

Let them be on the bottom, serving us.

Excuse me, I'd prefer nobody on my bottom, whatever they're serving.

I just don't think you can force businesses to be nice, or be fair. The unscrupulous will find ways around it, or outright break the laws (e.g. sweat shops in LA), and the law abiding businesses who have to compete for good labor are crushed under the yoke of regulations. I think there is a reasonable middle ground. Product awareness through the internet is growing, and will be even more critical in the future as RFID and mobile computing allow shoppers instant assessments of their buying choices. I might not be so quick to grab that Nestles Quick if I knew it was made by African children kept as slaves.

Well, we are seeing just how truthful a lot of the stuff on the internet is -- death panels for example. The internet seems to be best at propagating paranoia based on misinformation authored by blind political hatred.

I'm tired of novelty items being sold as ecologically friendly. Naw, mostly they are just another waste of resources marketed to people who want to feel green.

Our household buys dishwasher detergent that purports to be green. Is it really green? Probably not really. But somebody will come along with a competing brand. Then someone will do research on which one is actually greener, and then down the road a product that is actually green may eventually emerge. So we are in the market group, but be aware that it is optimism, not stupidity, that is driving our decision.

But to some extent I hear you. I'm not as gung-ho on quick changes as I used to be, because I've been around long enough to know about Unintended Consequences, or Unexpected Costs. For instance, that huge array of solar power hardware that is being proposed in the southwest, well, turns out it will cost a lot of water to do that. Hrm. Where is the water going to come from? (still, it beats using oil, esp. foreign oil)

-V

[Jester]

Wow. You know, I came in to this all expecting to defend Obama, and I did. But the content of his speech is *shocking*, even to someone of relatively leftist sensibilities. Here's the full text. It might as well be written in Red Ink, if you catch my drift.

Read it and weep for the future of your country.

May the good lord save you from Leninism, because your president certainly won't. "Here in America, you write your own destiny." Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself.

-Jester

(Just for Pete's sake: /sarcasm on, /sarcasm off.)

[kandrathe]

Wow. You know, I came in to this all expecting to defend Obama, and I did. But the content of his speech is *shocking*, even to someone of relatively leftist sensibilities. Here's the full text. It might as well be written in Red Ink, if you catch my drift.

Read it and weep for the future of your country.

May the good lord save you from Leninism, because your president certainly won't. "Here in America, you write your own destiny." Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself.

-Jester

Do you mean the part where he says, "The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class."

[Jester]

Do you mean the part where he says, "The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class."

Karl Marx believes in public education... and Barack Obama believes in public education!

It all fits!

-Jester

[Vandiablo]

Karl Marx believes in public education... and Barack Obama believes in public education!

Don't forget No Child Left Behind!! I never knew that George Bush was a Marxist!!

[Vandiablo]

Laura Bush weighs in!

Found this on CNN.com

The typically reserved former first lady defended Obama's decision to deliver a back-to-school speech to students, putting her at odds with many conservatives afraid that the president will use the opportunity to advance his political agenda.

"I think he is [doing a good job]," Bush said when asked to assess Obama's job performance. "I think he has got a lot on his plate, and he has tackled a lot to start with, and that has probably made it more difficult."

and later in the same

"I think there is a place for the president ... to talk to schoolchildren and encourage" them, she said. Parents should follow his example and "encourage their own children to stay in school and to study hard and to try to achieve the dream that they have."

Thaaaank you, Laura. Well, we'd best be going now...

After her husband's eight controversial years in the White House, what does Bush have to say to critics who believe he had a negative, destructive influence in the world?

"I would say that that's absolutely not right," Bush said.

Oh, dear. We didn't stop soon enough...

...never mind...