Nah, a political liar

Post #319,032 by crazy 12/23/09 9:34:27 AM Reply	Nah, a political liar Here you go Beep. Enjoying? I'm sure you'll find many of these type of statements, in all politicians. Oh well. EVERYTHING is negotiable, up to a POINT. Simple enough. If you are not willing to negotiate, then you have to be willing to either walk away or kill the other guy. So, what would you have? He should walk away, and get nothing? Or should he tell the troops to start pointing guns? I know you'd rather someone work from the outside and point the guns, though, so I doubt you'd have any helpful advise from someone trying to work within the system.
Post #319,033 by beepster 12/23/09 9:53:07 AM Reply	Thank you I'm sure you'll find many of these type of statements, in all politicians Just like everyone else...Chicago style. Yep. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #319,091 by mmoffitt 12/24/09 10:47:28 AM Reply	Heh. "Working within the system." How'd that work out for the Duma again?
Post #319,096 by crazy 12/24/09 11:42:33 AM Reply	Silly comparison Try again. We are not soviet russia, and if someone is afraid of being sent to the gulag, he's insane. On the other hand, I didn't say there isn't occasional cases of people disapearing, but we've always had that.
Post #319,190 by mmoffitt 12/27/09 5:53:42 PM Reply	If not the gulag, maybe Gitmo?
Post #319,198 by crazy 12/28/09 7:39:14 AM Reply	Hmm Exactly how many people died in Siberia? How many at Gitmo? Dude, you got issues. He inherited gitmo, and if you think he could wave his magic wand, in poof, it's gone, simply because he's the pres, you are hallucinating. I see forward motion. I have no idea what the constraints are on dealing with the people they currently have there (both the prisoners and the military running it), and I am in no position to judge.
Post #319,223 by mmoffitt 12/28/09 5:02:32 PM Reply	You tell me. Anyone die at Gitmo? How about any of the other "secret" prisons? By the way, my last post was tongue-in-cheek. You need a dose of reality and the reality is that the USA has be become the Corporate version of Bolshevik Russia.
Post #319,245 by pwhysall 12/29/09 3:35:44 AM Reply	When did you sneak back in? Didn't we tell the door staff about you? (Good to see you)
Post #319,248 by crazy 12/29/09 4:37:56 AM Reply	When he got out of gitmo He's keeping a low profile.
Post #319,774 by mmoffitt 1/8/10 4:03:42 PM Reply	Thought I'd see how many were still Big O believers. ;0) (And thanks)
Post #319,249 by crazy 12/29/09 5:01:21 AM Reply	Sure, why not Assume 100 people died in gitmo and other black sites. I think this is high, not because those bastards wouldn't kill far more, they just aren't good enough to get the right people, and they don't like the hassle when they have to account for killing the wrong people. Not that they get in any real trouble, it's just a pain in the ass. So they tend to keep them alive for as long as possible while hoping to get some info to justify the whole exercise. You wanna higher? Come up with a bit of supporting info. Yes, every life is sacred (just like every sperm, at least to some people), but the issue here is not that no one is killed via this process, just that it doesn't compare to your example. So now, with a number of a hundred people, let's assume 90 of them were totally innocent poor bastards who were turned in by their neighbors who wanted revenge over a historical slight. 90%. Yes, I accept that the vast majority of the people held in those prison have done nothing (or at least not a lot) wrong. Ok, so at this point, I start reading on Soviet history. I may know a bit, but a resfresher never hurts. And then I realize there is simpy no point in continuing. If your sense of scale is so off that you consider what they did as a historical precedent that compares with what is happening right now, there is no discussion to be had. 100 deaths vs millions of deaths. If you think gitmo will be scaling up and getting worse, then maybe I've missed something. But I doubt it.
Post #319,264 by boxley 12/29/09 11:15:41 AM Reply	not just gitmo the industrial prison industry is filled with more filling to come of some of the highest incarceration rates in the world. 4-12 years for coke residue in a pipe is a balanced rational sentence? Not in anyt sane society. Now when these prisons are built and not filled these folks head to the legislatures to get customers. Note the judges if philly, the alaskan legislators who were convicted for doing just that. Now the feds will be lobbied for just a few more thought crimes and voila, everyone gets a number
Post #319,870 by crazy 1/11/10 7:01:25 AM 1/11/10 7:12:27 AM Reply	Grrr I accept that those evil bastards in those cases are doing exactly what what you fear, at least as the 1st stepping stone in the slippery slope. Yes, I give a watered down lecture to my kids, basically giving your viewpoint. And yes, the disparate sentences for crack VS powder coke seem hugely discriminatory. Do you have any direct experience with these drugs? While I am a proponent of no restriction for adults for anything, I gotta tell you, crack beats heroin (by FAR) as incredibly damaging, not just to an individual, but to blocks, neghborhoods, it's fucking incredible. It sweeps like wildfire. I'd consider life imprisonment for an adult who gives a kid (choose a number, 18 it fine with me) crack. Really. If an adult gives it to someone else's kids, let the parent decide if they want the death penalty. My TL grew up on a block of over 100 kids on it. NE philly. It was swarming with friendly activity. Of course, it was a bit isolated, as most enclaves are. And then Grandma crack moved in. She has 2 daughters she was pimping out, and a nice little crack business going. Of course, no one knew that then. Within a couple of years, the block was destroyed. Most of the kids were smoking crack. Lots of deaths. Yes, some jail as well, supporting the prison/industrial system. I've done almost every drug (ya know, that people play with) known to man, at least in the 70s. I know a few isolated deaths in that time frame. I almost died. In each case, a lesson was learned, and it was unlikely that's other members of my druggie community would then follow the level of usage. Crack doesn't work that way. Let be a reward for living until 18, but let it be controlled. If you still make the decision to use it, fine, but don't let it near the kids. Ok, off the drug rant. The problem is that you either see a near term disaster (on the total political situation) that I don't, and are in the FUCK IT ALL, RISK EVERYTHING (and maybe you don't feel you are risking much at this point), and RESTART mode, or you are a serious idealistic long term thinker and don't care about the intense near term pain and death, since you feel the end result will simply be worth it. Also, you are a competent survivalist. In the words of Rambo's colonel, you can eat things that will make a billy goat puke. So if a total shitstorm happens, you might actually end up on top. Which probably colors your perspective a bit. Either way, I can't back your direction. My life is pretty damn good (not monetarily, just finally in a good place emotionally/family), which means my risk aversion goes up, and I'd rather ride out what I see, working from within, than nuking and rebuilding. Edited by crazy Jan. 11, 2010, 07:12:27 AM EST Expand All History
Post #319,878 by boxley 1/11/10 8:56:15 AM Reply	nope crack is good but compared to the almost ejaculation that heroin gives when intraduced via needle mixed with mda commonly known as X is nothing. Not trying to give anyone any ideas, but when the big C sez I have 6 months I will be alternating that with speedballs. Of course all of the above is just conjecture on my part. :-) On your experience may vary discussion. A dear friend Frank Rising bought a gram of coke every weekend as pussy bait from the middle of world war 2 until the late 1980's. A master thief, assistant of hookers and owner of after hour joints survivor of lung cancer, discovered crack circa 1988. This man was a paragon of ignoring temptations did an 8ball a day until he croaked in 1991. Not a pretty drug. It is an easy drug to quit. Much like booze if you dont have that first hit off the pipe you dont need a second. smoking tobacco is more difficult in my uneducated opinion
Post #319,881 by crazy 1/11/10 9:24:32 AM Reply	Agreed, but Needles cross a line for most druggies. Until that point, you can live in denial and say I'm not THAT bad. That's why hilbilly heroin (oxys) was a big deal, since it allowed people to chew and get ALMOST the same high, and still think you are OK So it really means FAR less people take the 1st hit. Also, it takes far longer to die on crack, it is far more social (a lot easier to share a pipe than a needle!), which means it grows via network effect. Heroin is a 1 on 1 type of thing when being shared. You have to trust the person more, since you may nod off and they could rob/kill you. Far less chance of that happening on crack. So, when talking about individual affect, heroin is more likely to kill you in the short term, but crack will kill far more people.
Post #319,882 by drook 1/11/10 9:26:58 AM Reply	Contaigion vs. mortality ... I'm sure CDC has the figures -- Drew
Post #319,886 by boxley 1/11/10 9:40:22 AM Reply	druggies have a line? ROFL! back when I was a kid people had fit kits
Post #319,853 by mmoffitt 1/10/10 7:47:14 PM Reply	Sense of scale. That's my point. It is a matter of degrees only. Can you honestly say you feel good about that?
Post #319,871 by crazy 1/11/10 7:04:52 AM Reply	Read above post I just did
Post #319,872 by crazy 1/11/10 7:18:21 AM Reply	You need smileys Tongue-in-cheek usually doesn't get picked up when talking about mass murder on the internet. Sorry, you've posted way too many historical rants (with some seriously scary stuff, no, I'm not going to go looking for them) for me to ever take you anything but seriously.
Post #319,181 by crazy 12/27/09 6:14:47 AM Reply	This guy says it quite well http://www.nytimes.c...on/26douthat.html
Post #319,185 by Another Scott 12/27/09 11:00:43 AM Reply	Disagree. I think he misses him completely. Take a look at his speech on race again. It seems to me that Obama is completely transparent on what he believes and his approach to governing. http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=print The world, and politics, isn't black and white. Cheers, Scott.
Post #319,186 by crazy 12/27/09 11:47:04 AM Reply	Ehh Wonderful speech. No doubt. I heard it live. I was driving through Morrestown, NJ, which according to Fortune was the best town in the USA to live in during 2005, listening to NPR. (just came across that snippet). So anyway, what does that have to say about his core inner targets and what he is willing to compromise on? Bottom line is we don't know his bottom line, we can't. Because if we did, he'd never get it.
Post #319,189 by Another Scott 12/27/09 5:22:31 PM Reply	I don't know how he can be more clear. Douthat said: Obama baffles observers, I suspect, because heÂs an ideologue and a pragmatist all at once. HeÂs a doctrinaire liberal whoÂs always willing to cut a deal and grab for half the loaf. He has the policy preferences of a progressive blogger, but the governing style of a seasoned Beltway wheeler-dealer. He's not an ideologue. He's not a doctrinaire liberal. He doesn't have the policy preferences of a progressive blogger or the governing style of a seasoned Beltway wheeler-dealer. Obama's written and given several speeches where he explicitly talks about what he believes and how he wants to get there. He's written 2 books that talk about his history and beliefs. He's about the most transparent president we've ever had (whether one likes what he has to say or not). But he doesn't fit in a pidegeon-hole, so the pundits don't know how to categorize him. This is where we are right now. ItÂs a racial stalemate weÂve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy Â particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own. But I have asserted a firm conviction Â a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people Â that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union. For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances Â for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives Â by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny. Ironically, this quintessentially American Â and yes, conservative Â notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend WrightÂs sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change. Ultimately, he an idealistic pragmatist. He wants to see reason backed by evidence - not dogma. He's not a capital D democrat, or a capital P progressive. He knows that change will be difficult, but by understanding who we are and how we got here, we can make the country and the world better for everyone. We don't have to be prisoners of our past. He refuses to be pidgeon-holed; that doesn't make him a sell-out or a Manchurian Candidate. He's in it for the long-term. I think this is behind everything he does from his race speech, to his inaugural address, to his comments about ridding the world of nuclear weapons (which we are obligated by treaty to do, already), to his budget proposals, and even to his actions thus far on FISA and Guantanamo and the 2 wars. He's not a Chicago politician who will turn off the lights on people who don't vote with him.... He's not going to tilt at windmills for a single-payer system (even while he accepts the arguments that it's most efficient) since there's no amount of political capital that can get it enacted now. Asking what his bottom line is sort-of misses the point. I really don't understand why so many commentators can't see this... :-/ FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #319,196 by crazy 12/28/09 7:32:59 AM Reply	Your concept of bottom line is different from mine You get annoyed at a high level label which will then supposedly drive policy in a predicatable fashion. I don't care about the top level labels. I care that we move forward in a good direction. My bottom line is based on every negotiation when going for a specific goal. You don't let the other guy know what is the most important to you, or what you are willing to give up to achieve it. Because he is not ideologue, you will never know. Sorry if some of the pointed to article doesn't match exactly what you feel, but it says many things well about how people simply will not be able to predict what he does, and I think that is a good thing.
Post #319,201 by Another Scott 12/28/09 10:53:20 AM 12/28/09 11:01:35 AM Reply	No worries. Don't let my whining get to you. My annoyance is more a matter of being amazed at the (abysmal) quality of most opinion articles in the major newspapers, major blogs, and on TV than anything else. There are many reasons to be annoyed with Obama - saying that he's an "ideologue, a Chicago poll, who doesn't fight for his true beliefs" (or similar) isn't one of them. IMHO. :-) It seems to me that policy has moved exactly the way he said he wanted it to go. There have been stumbles along the way (Gitmo will take more than a year; Stupak's amendment may or may not make it; etc.). He's probably been too cautious on the economic rescue packages. But in general, he's letting the Congress work out the details and do its job while he sets the bar. We didn't elect a king. [edit:] Krugman covers a related issue in his blog today: http://krugman.blogs...the-empty-center/ Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott Dec. 28, 2009, 11:01:35 AM EST Expand All History
Post #319,203 by boxley 12/28/09 10:54:45 AM Reply	on the other hand, having no policy stances means you cant get pinned down or blamed.
Post #319,211 by crazy 12/28/09 12:01:10 PM Reply	Or submarined
Post #319,191 by mmoffitt 12/27/09 5:56:01 PM Reply	Agree with it, except it's too long. The entire article could have been one sentence: "There's no there, there."

Welcome to IWETHEY!