Political Litmus Test
-
I've often said that the solution to illegal immigration was to just annex fucking Mexico.
Hear, hear. I think an MX state code would be cool.
But, joking aside, why not? Why not all of Central America? It would solve most of the illegal immigrant problem.
I knew there'd be someone still blaming it on bush.... 8 years later....
From Wikipedia: "The group was founded in 1999 by Jordanian radical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi under the name Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād."
That precedes Bush.
But when it became powerful was after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the war which was manufactured by Bush policy. It would therefore be a part of the terrorism that many people warned would result from such a war; and became the ISIL organization it is today specifically as a result of that policy.
I'll concede that Obama may have allowed the problem to continue to grow That does not excuse the Bush policy that midwifed the problem; Bush hands are not clean.
Above you wrote, "I'm so tired of people basing their opinions entirely around party lines." If you're so fucking non-party line, why are you defending Bush? Let him be responsible for the crappy policy he created. But instead, you must make yourself very tired, kissing all those Republican asses.
@Fox said:
Pretty sure Bush was the one who declared victory in Iraq but kept our troops there anyway.
You're sure about a lot of wrong things.
Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success
President told an audience of soldiers at Fort Bragg that the final pullout after nearly nine years of conflict is a 'historic' moment
> "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.."
Oh, except for ISIL. He forgot to mention that. Must have figured they were only a minor problem, huh?
-
I'll concede that Obama may have allowed the problem to continue to grow That does not excuse the Bush policy that midwifed the problem; Bush hands are not clean.
Above you wrote, "I'm so tired of people basing their opinions entirely around party lines." If you're so fucking non-party line, why are you defending Bush? Let him be responsible for the crappy policy he created. But instead, you must make yourself very tired, kissing all those Republican asses.
But, I'm not doing that.
I'm saying @Fox is wrong for implying that Obama didn't have a part.
Both Bush and Obama are playing a part in enabling ISIS to grow in power. But neither are the cause of ISIS and neither are solving a problem that was caused by some other President.
If you're willing to admit both are at fault, and I am, then what exactly are we both arguing against?
-
If someone is being fired so that the company can pay less, then it's unethical.
one day we will end it, meg
-
I'm saying @Fox is wrong for implying that Obama didn't have a part.
Well...
You said, "But Obama, after calling out Bush for war, goes into the Middle East, shits on it [Iraq], let's ISIS spread, and millions are dying from that."
Read objectively as I can, your statement asserts that, "It's all Obama's fault. He shit on Iraq." And it is not: Obama bears a share, but Bush bears at least an equal share and possibly more.
So then @Fox wrote, "That was Bush, actually. The middle east was shit on and ISIS was spreading by 2007." It is entirely clear that his statement was in response to the idea that "Obama shit on Iraq" in your statement. It's partly subjective, yes, but it is objectively true that ISIS was spreading by 2007..actually before 2007.
So you respond, "I knew there'd be someone still blaming it on Bush.... 8 years later...." But Bush deserves blame, 13 years later. His Iraq policy made ISIS a force. If there was any "shit on Iraq", Bush policy contributed a butt load. If ISIS wasn't "killing millions" by the end of the Bush presidency, well, that was just a matter of time, wasn't it?
You think that keeping the military force in Iraq would have solved this problem?
Hell, all the forces in Iraq couldn't stop the insurgency in Baghdad. So the idea that "Obama shit on Iraq" by removing the military forces: that's just purest party line BS. You don't like Obama or his politics--we get that--but you want to blame everything on Obama? And then object when someone says Bush is [also] responsible?Basing your opinions entirely around party lines. Saying you hate that.
The truth is, you only hate it when Democrats do it. But you, you're a master at it.
-
the correct solution for this shit is find out why economy is so different between countries and fix it.
that is a great question for political or economic science that doesn't seem to have a decent non bullshitty answer.
It has a perfectly good answer, just one that all the chickens who keep voting for Colonel Sanders don't want to hear.
The nature of a percentage return on investment means that large investments generate higher returns, in absolute dollar terms, than small investments. Therefore, people in a position to decide where to invest large amounts will make more, in absolute dollar terms, than those who control the allocation of smaller amounts. Concentration of wealth is an inbuilt tendency in the operation of any system designed to generate a return on investment.
This pattern extends to economic entities in general, not just people; in particular, to countries. Between countries, the taxation and redistribution methods that partially offset concentration inside countries don't apply. The net flow of wealth across the US border is inward for the very simple and obvious reason that the US controls more investment capital than any other country (though with the rise of China, that is starting to change).
The economic differences between countries that influence mass movements of people across borders are differences between the conditions applying to the lowest-paid, who according to the above logic will always be the most numerous. Countries with less total capital to play with are generally going to have less effective internal wealth-redistribution and justice administration mechanisms in place, making conditions for the majority inside those countries harsher than they are in wealthier countries.
So there you go. Answered in three paragraphs. That's your cue for cackling, capital-worshippers.
-
I've often said that the solution to illegal immigration was to just annex fucking Mexico.
I knew you were a dick, but I had no clue that you were an actual Nazi.
-
shits on it [Iraq],
Strawman.
So, pretty much the rest of your post is BS.
The middle east was shit on and ISIS was spreading by 2007.
No, Bush was blamed for the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
"Obama shit on Iraq" in your statement.
Continuing to make that assumption.
Bush shit on Iraq, Obama fucked up Syria and Libya.
But Bush deserves blame, 13 years later.
Not for ISIS... sorry.
You think that keeping the military force in Iraq would have solved this problem?
To be honest, it's non-falsifiable. You could always use more force.
You don't like Obama or his politics
I don't like Bush or Obama.
Obama doubled down on Bush, and liberals don't call him out on it. That's what pisses me off.but you want to blame everything on Obama?
No, I haven't.
I'm pointing out that @Fox doesn't want to blame Obama for any of it.
And then object when someone says Bush is [also] responsible?
I object when someone wants to continue to blame Bush for Obama's continued failures.
You've created a situation where Obama can't fail, because it's all Bush's fault. We'll forever be "recovering" from Bush, so the Democrats can perpetually fail without any blame.
That's what pisses me off.
I could care less about Bush.
The truth is, you only hate it when Democrats do it. But you, you're a master at it.
No, your Xaade strawman army is a master at it.
-
This pattern extends to economic entities in general, not just people; in particular, to countries, and between countries, the taxation and redistribution methods that partially offset concentration inside countries don't apply. The net flow of wealth across the US border is inward for the very simple and obvious reason that the US controls more investment capital than any other country (though with the rise of China, that is starting to change).
Redistribution is non-falsifiable.
You can always find some place wealth wasn't redistributed enough.
Besides, if you were right, then all of Detroit would be running for the Houston border.
-
I'm saying @Fox is wrong for implying that Obama didn't have a part.
I'm saying the primary part was played by Bush. Maybe Obama could have done something differently to prevent Bush's fuckups from reaching this magnitude, but they were still Bush's fuckups to begin with.
-
I would be fine with the usa annexing the entire planet if it could make it better
TIL that this place is crawling with actual One World Government conspirators.
-
I'm saying the primary part was played by Bush. Maybe Obama could have done something differently to prevent Bush's fuckups from reaching this magnitude, but they were still Bush's fuckups to begin with.
Exactly.... his fault will be perpetuated through countless cycles of magnitude exponential doubling-downs, and you can always point back to Bush.
No matter how much the next President doubles-triples-quadruples down on failed strategy, it's the first one that will take all of the blame.
How convenient.
Or you could look back in history and realize that we keep choosing these same strategies no matter which party is in charge, and realize that not everything is Bush's fault. It's the whole system that is at fault.
It's the reason all the Democrats voted to go to war in Iraq in the first place.
You know what, the more I look at this stuff, the more respect I have for Bernie.
He may have bad ideas, but at least he's consistent and doesn't bullshit and blame everyone else for perpetuity.
-
TIL that this place is crawling with actual One World Government conspirators.
Europe does it and liberals say nothing, America does it and OMG end of the fucking world NEO-NAZI FASCISTS TAKE OVER
-
No matter how much the next President doubles-triples-quadruples down on failed strategy, it's the first one that will take all of the blame.
TIL Obama's strategy is identical to Bush's.
-
TIL Obama's strategy is identical to Bush's.
Sufficiently similar.
No one has ever said,
"Let's not put forces in the Middle East".
For as much as people bitched about Bush doing it, you'd expect people to flip out at the mere suggestion of Obama doing anything, much less massive collateral damage drone strikes.
-
No one has ever said,
"Let's not put forces in the Middle East".
Obama has said that numerous times, actually. He has outright stated that he does not want boots on the ground in the middle east. Yeah, the drone strikes are fucked up, especially when they target places based on shoddy intel and end up blowing up a goddamn hospital, but that's a separate issue - and entirely different from Bush's "let's go in and find the WMD's!" Strategy.
-
if you were right, then all of Detroit would be running for the Houston border.
No. If the model is correct, I would expect to see more low-income people moving from Detroit to Houston than from Houston to Detroit.
Massive flows of people don't need to involve the entirety of a population. A smallish percentage of a large population is still a large number of people.
-
Yeah, the drone strikes are fucked up, especially when they target places based on shoddy intel and end up blowing up a goddamn hospital
We never heard the end of it when Bush blew up a "school" / training ground.
Never heard the end of it.
Drone strikes hit with major collateral damage from Obama... crickets
-
That much is quite true. Obama's PR machine is much more skilled than Bush's was.
A big part of that is because what it has to work with is a President bright enough to know when to STFU.
-
But, joking aside, why not?
Colonialism is bad, m'kay?
the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the war which was manufactured by Bush/Clinton/Bush policy.
Not really. It was a long time coming, really. Just an intensification of a war that was still going.
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.."
LOL, I love that your still wrong about the "Mission Accomplished" banner. And, yeah, I don't see what's wrong about that statement. I was mainly edumacating @Fox about what Obama said.
-
You think that keeping the military force in Iraq would have solved this problem?
Hell, all the forces in Iraq couldn't stop the insurgency in Baghdad.Yes, I suspect that a more serious force could have stopped ISIS invading and conquering cities. What they did in northern Iraq was quite different than the urban insurgencies before.
-
The net flow of wealth across the US border is inward for the very simple and obvious reason that the US controls more investment capital than any other country (though with the rise of China, that is starting to change).
...
That's your cue for cackling, capital-worshippers.Maybe if you guys didn't look like such a worse investment you could get some more of that sweet, sweet capital.
Though interestingly, the US tax code tends to keep overseas profits overseas.
@boomzilla said:
I've often said that the solution to illegal immigration was to just annex fucking Mexico.
I knew you were a dick, but I had no clue that you were an actual Nazi.
TDEMSYR, but I've been thinking about an excuse to post this:
-
You know what, the more I look at this stuff, the more respect I have for Bernie.
He may have bad ideas, but at least he's consistent and doesn't bullshit and blame everyone else for perpetuity.
Actually, one thing he seems consistent about is that he blames everyone else for bullshit.
-
That much is quite true. Obama's PR machine is much more skilled than Bush's was.
A big part of that is because what it has to work with is a President bright enough to know when to STFU.
LOL. That's literally the opposite of reality. Bush needed to communicate a lot more. Obama loves to put his foot in his mouth. Beer summit? Stomping on criminal investigations? Fanning race riots?
But of course Obama's PR machine works better. It includes most of the media.
-
Bush needed to communicate a lot more.
Not more. Better.
Unless I misunderestimated him.
-
Unless I misunderestimated him.
I can't believe that didn't happen.
Not more. Better.
No, but seriously, his White House (not even just him!) was very reluctant to say anything. It was quite frustrating.
-
his White House (not even just him!) was very reluctant to
let the dumbfuck anywhere near a microphone, and for good reason.
-
-
@xaade said:
Exactly.... his fault will be perpetuated through countless cycles of magnitude exponential doubling-downs, and you can always point back to Bush.
No matter how much the next President doubles-triples-quadruples down on failed strategy, it's the first one that will take all of the blame.
Arsonists would love you for Attorney General. Because you'd be arguing, "The arsonist is innocent; the real culprit is the fire department that failed to put the fire out."
-
@Fox said:
I'm so tired of party lines basing themselves around opinions
As opposed to...what? I am sure in your idiot mind that was some sort of deep philosophical statement...but that is what a political party you fucktard. People who share the same opinions.
-
@Fox said:
Everything he does, everything he advocates, every sentence spewed forth from his mouth is unprofessional, hateful, and unacceptable in a civilized society at all, much less from the leader of it.
Goddamn you are fucked up. I could find tons of shit he has said that doesn't fit any of that. But idiots like you latch on to spin and only the things that you read on Buzzfeed or other sites that post clickbait listicles.
-
@Polygeekery said:
@Fox said:
I'm so tired of party lines basing themselves around opinions
As opposed to...what? I am sure in your idiot mind that was some sort of deep philosophical statement...but that is what a political party you fucktard. People who share the same opinions.
:that's_the_joke.tiff:
