1 - 10 Next
This is probably one of the most coherent explanation of progressive US foreign policy that I have seen. Certainly not something I expected to see in the comments section of an internet piece. Well done.
An Obama fan actually complaining about a politicians changing their position? Wow - I just got my irony detector fixed and now it's broken again. Obama's "consistent" positions you can count on one hand...he flips more than a Rumanian gymnast. The only thing he actually seems to keep the same position on is "it wasn't my fault" - "all these scandals aren't really scandals" and (my favorite) - "I found out about it watching the news". Even if you believe all his ridiculous lies - he is (at best) horribly incompetent.
Sorry...4th paragraph should be "*there are hawks"...not their. Grammar Nazis I throw myself at the mercy of the court.
Wow - that's just....wow. First off - I have yet to see ANYONE (Republican or Democrat) with at least a high school education deny that the US has caused some of the issues we are encountering now....the difference is that the "blame America" crowd does not acknowledge sitting back and doing nothing would not have also imposed costs to the US, its allies, and/or our national/economic security. Whether or not those costs outweigh the costs imposed by an active foreign policy is always the question. Yet there are still those who insist that the isolationist policy is the only acceptable one. Ignoring the fact that their are "hawks" and "doves" in BOTH parties so your statement is ridiculous on the face, that doesn't address the fact that both the "hawks" and the "doves" are unhappy with Barack's policies. The doves are unhappy with the drone strikes, the Afghani surge, air strikes, etc etc etc. The hawks are unhappy in that the President's war policies have been incoherent and largely counter-productive - often choosing the wrong Allies, wrong interventions, at the wrong time - seeming weak and ineffectual, or exactly the opposite of what hawks want to portray. Considering the President's polling on foreign policy in which roughly 2/3rds of those polled disapproved or were "undecided" - it seems pretty clear that the only people "happy" with Obama's foreign policy are those who support Obama regardless of his actual policies. Certainly not the "Republicans" you demand your loyalty oaths from.
The Democrats are criticizing someone for a "Blame America" stance and a "retreat from the world". My irony detector just blew up. Hasn't that been their National Platform since the mid-20th century?
Best seller lists don't always equate to strong sales at specific stores. A better yardstick would be does their book selection contain other best-selling books critical of the President or pushing for conservative policies? If so, then it's less likely that the book was removed for political ideology. I don't shop at Costco much and I buy books electronically, so I have no idea.
*Sigh* I never said he was a techie. Feel free to scroll up and read my comments again. I never mentioned his technical skills or lack there of. Having worked professionally in the tech field for close to two decades, I'm quite aware of the stories, accomplishments, and shortcomings of Microsoft and their products. Now, lets assume your assessment of Microsoft is correct and they only "copy other people's work" - which I find arguable as they have introduced a few things and refined others. Not nearly as innovative as other companies, but they are not completely without new ideas. But, let's assume your position is correct. That means that a guy with zero original ideas turned a $50K investment into one of the biggest companies in the world and himself into the wealthiest man in the world (at one time) simply by copying the ideas of others. That seems to show a pretty good feel for business - and makes it rather ridiculous to claim he merely succeeded because of family connections. Wow - that sounds familiar.....oh yeah, that's exactly what I said above. You can dismiss his politics, you can dismiss his ethics, you can dismiss his technical skills...you can even equate a portion of his success to having the right connections and being in the right place at the right time. But, you cannot with any level of logic completely dismiss his skills at managing and growing his business.
No she wasn't, she was on the board of the United Way - NOT IBM. She was a friend of the CEO of IBM who got his foot in the door, but that hardly means he made the DOS decision on a whime because she "greased the skids".
First off - I said business accumen, not technical talent. Secondly - I didn't say he wrote DOS, I was referring to the BASIC interpreter. Thirdly - regardless of him being sued, turning a $50K investment is pretty strong indicator of business acumen.
AlwaysLiberty - sorry, it's not right. Firstly - I'd encourage you to go look at every single poll and every single Presidential candidate that has suggested privatizing SS and see how well it worked out for them. Have you ever read on the Galveston County privatized Social Security plan? Well Galveston County is one of the few places in the US that is legally able to opt out of Social Security - the plan is an amazing success, stable, well-funded, and provides a MUCH better retirement than Social Security. Well, I live about 50 miles from there - just 50 miles from a living, breathing example of how well the privitization works and still can find very few people who support privatizing Social Security. It's sad really. Under your plan - we keep all existing seniors on Medicare and SS? That alone means the SS tax continues until they are dead since the plan is "pay as you go". Current taxes go to current beneficiaries....meaning that all current workers will continue paying for SS and Medicare despite the fact that everyone 49 and under will never see a dime of the money they have paid into it. So - that money will continue to be spent (under your plan) and will continue to be spent for the next 30 or so years until the people currently 50 die and are removed from the plan. I agree with you it's the way to go, but that's hardly going to be taxes that "disappear immediately". Note that also doesn't cover the trillions in underfunded entitlements. Granted most of that underfunded amount won't come into play under your plan, but even if only 2% comes into play, that is still another $2 trillion you need to account for. So you think you can get a Constitutional Amendment passed that eliminates it for everyone under 50? I'm less than optimistic. The you have the interest on the national debt, which for FY 2013 was right at around half a trillion dollars. Again, that is mandatory spending that cannot be ignored. Then we have to pay for government - the things we want to keep, even at a reduced amount. Assuming everything passed like you say it will - really, not a bad plan at all, sir. I do think people would see a modest reduction in the burden of government. I don't think it would be as big as you think it would because of the spending I mentioned above plus since about half of the US recieves a subsidy of some sort, their reduction will have to cover that loss. Problem is - I don't believe it has the slightest chance of ever happening.
1 - 10 Next