Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
disco

Collateral Murder

Recommended Posts

It's not our job/right/advantage to spread democracy.

 

Also I love how we always claim to be the harbingers of democracy... We're (the USA) a fucking republic people.

 

I don't believe its our job either. I'm much more of an isolationist than most. But I certainly don't think its a bad thing to overthrow a despot and then turn around and give that oil rich country right back to its people.

 

And a republic is a form of democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's one thing that I've learned from watching this video, it's that you don't go into a battle sight until more than an hour after the fight/missile strike occurred.

 

That's what I don't get. The Apaches are still circling, the dust hasn't even settled, and they roll right on in and start fucking with stuff. At least one of them glances up at the chopper filming. Seriously, wtf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I don't get. The Apaches are still circling, the dust hasn't even settled, and they roll right on in and start fucking with stuff. At least one of them glances up at the chopper filming. Seriously, wtf?

How far away do you think that the camera is from the people who were getting shot at?

 

You can calculate an approximate distance if you look up the muzzle velocity of a 30mm cannon and time the delay between firing and the rounds landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I love how we always claim to be the harbingers of democracy... We're (the USA) a fucking republic people.

 

Dude, this has got to be the most ignorant thing you have said on these boards. It shows that you either have no idea what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, or you have no idea how our government works. I'm leaning toward the former, which makes me believe you are a knee-jerker, which makes me call into question how well you've thought out your position on other topics.

 

True, we are a republic (representative republic or representative democratic republic, according to some) and Iraq and Afghanistan are now very similar to our style of government, if not that exactly. So, how are those representatives chosen? Through democracy.

 

So, yes, we have spread democracy to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan so that they can elect representatives in their government.

 

And really, how awesome would it sound if someone said, "We have brought representative republicanism to Iraq!" Not so much, I suspect, especially since most of America thinks we actually are a democracy.

 

If I have 38 minutes to spare some day, I'll watch this video. For now, though, I have too much work to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I have 38 minutes to spare some day, I'll watch this video. For now, though, I have too much work to do.

 

You can skip the first five minutes and just watch the next 15 or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How far away do you think that the camera is from the people who were getting shot at?

 

You can calculate an approximate distance if you look up the muzzle velocity of a 30mm cannon and time the delay between firing and the rounds landing.

 

Not sure what your point is there RD, but yeah, I did notice that. I do realize they were at a fair distance, at least out of small arms range I would imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I have 38 minutes to spare some day, I'll watch this video. For now, though, I have too much work to do.

 

Nothing to see here, everyone back to work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, this has got to be the most ignorant thing you have said on these boards. It shows that you either have no idea what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, or you have no idea how our government works. I'm leaning toward the former, which makes me believe you are a knee-jerker, which makes me call into question how well you've thought out your position on other topics.

 

True, we are a republic (representative republic or representative democratic republic, according to some) and Iraq and Afghanistan are now very similar to our style of government, if not that exactly. So, how are those representatives chosen? Through democracy.

 

So, yes, we have spread democracy to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan so that they can elect representatives in their government.

 

And really, how awesome would it sound if someone said, "We have brought representative republicanism to Iraq!" Not so much, I suspect, especially since most of America thinks we actually are a democracy.

 

If I have 38 minutes to spare some day, I'll watch this video. For now, though, I have too much work to do.

 

Given how frequently Fahr likes to state that the US isn't a democracy, it was a fair enough statement on these boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how frequently Fahr likes to state that the US isn't a democracy, it was a fair enough statement on these boards.

 

Not only that... it's an accurate statement--- the republic bit anyways. Whether the US should bring democracy to the globe is more opinion.

 

I don't see why you'd call someone ignorant for saying the US is a republic. Is it because others might not like how it sounds to say we seek to spread republicanism instead of pure democracy? Tell them to go read a book.

 

You criticize his use of republic, and say that the representatives are chosen through democracy--- isn't that implied? I'm just overall confused by your taking offense to his statement. It's a completely reasonable and factual statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You criticize his use of republic, and say that the representatives are chosen through democracy--- isn't that implied?

 

That's my point. We are a republic, but our method of choosing our representatives is through democracy. So, we have spread democracy to those countries. We have also spread republicanism. Whether or not we should is a different discussion, of course.

 

You shouldn't question me for making that statement. You should question him for his lack of understanding that there really isn't a distinction, which everyone here can agree on... except him. He's the one that said we weren't spreading democracy, but only republicanism.

 

Hair-splitting, I know. But given the political slant and tone of the other posts conq has made, it seemed to me to be a knee-jerk response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's my point. We are a republic, but our method of choosing our representatives is through democracy. So, we have spread democracy to those countries. We have also spread republicanism. Whether or not we should is a different discussion, of course.

 

You shouldn't question me for making that statement. You should question him for his lack of understanding that there really isn't a distinction, which everyone here can agree on... except him. He's the one that said we weren't spreading democracy, but only republicanism.

 

Hair-splitting, I know. But given the political slant and tone of the other posts conq has made, it seemed to me to be a knee-jerk response.

 

So now republics are the only kind of democracy, and they should be used interchangeably?

 

If I wanted to knee jerk i'd say "the soldiers should be killed for supporting the fag loving Usa"

 

Also, what political slant do I have? Take a good guess, because I do work for a certain political party.

 

Posting from a phone, need to keep it short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, considering that there are dozens of government-recognized political parties in the US, taking a guess would be a losing proposition for me.

 

However, when you say things like

 

My only problem with Obama is that he isn't liberal enough.

 

and

 

Personally I'd rather see fully socialized health care while allowing private sector involvement.

 

Or better yet having Medicaid expanded to everyone.

 

I can venture a guess as to what side of the political spectrum to which you DON'T belong.

 

Not that it matters, because I try not to judge someone on the basis of what party or side of the aisle they belong to, but only on the merits of their argument. Just because you disagree with one thing or a multitude of things, doesn't necessarily make you wrong or me right. It's just the way we view the world. Of course, there are points where you could be totally wrong, but I know there's not a chance that you would change your mind from a discussion on an internet forum.

 

And BTW, Obama is probably one of the most liberal presidents we've ever had, maybe except for Woodrow Wilson. There might be one or two others, but you'd be hard pressed to make that case. He just doesn't ACT as liberal as he is, because there's no way he'd survive the political backlash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And BTW, Obama is probably one of the most liberal presidents we've ever had, maybe except for Woodrow Wilson. There might be one or two others, but you'd be hard pressed to make that case. He just doesn't ACT as liberal as he is, because there's no way he'd survive the political backlash.
He's *probably* one of the most liberal presidents we've ever had, but he hides it by governing center-right to throw people off the trail?

 

...

 

......

 

You realize that every president we've had since at least Carter has governed from like the same exact spot in the political spectrum? They've all been center-right. Clinton was center-right, Reagen was center-right, the Bushes were center-right, and Obama has been center-right. They haven't all been good, but they've all been center-right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say probably because I'm not totally sure if he is or not. Like I said, there could be one or two more so. Woodrow Wilson was definitely more left than Obama.

 

And taking over a large portion of the American car industry, essentially socializing health care and the education financing industry... just to name a couple things in recent memory... are NOT center-right. These three things are the major accomplishments of his presidency. Again, NOT center right.

 

I would think the only things that Obama has done that are center right are the handling of OEF and re-signing the Patriot Act. There might be more, but even if there were, it's not like we're playing a zero-sum game here, where one lefty thing is counteracted by a center-right thing and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are more. Overall, though, I'm pretty. Happy with obama, really. But every once in a while he'll stall on one of his promises (don't ask don't tell etc). Yeah, most liberal presidents act center right to keep up popularity, but I would prefer it if they stuck to their promises a little bit more.

 

Also, I'm an elected official of the democratic party. Responsible for recruiting pollworkers for 4 districts, and also trusted with delivering poll worker lists and election results in the primaries and local elections. The funny thing is I consider myself independant really.

 

For example, I'm voting republican this year. Our teachers union rejected a raise freeze giving up state school aid just to protest the governers budget. The democrat council is supporting them in doing this. This will raise our property taxes by 3%

 

Typing from phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say probably because I'm not totally sure if he is or not. Like I said, there could be one or two more so. Woodrow Wilson was definitely more left than Obama.

 

And taking over a large portion of the American car industry, essentially socializing health care and the education financing industry... just to name a couple things in recent memory... are NOT center-right. These three things are the major accomplishments of his presidency. Again, NOT center right.

 

I would think the only things that Obama has done that are center right are the handling of OEF and re-signing the Patriot Act. There might be more, but even if there were, it's not like we're playing a zero-sum game here, where one lefty thing is counteracted by a center-right thing and so on.

And Bush took over Wall Street and spent more money on health care then Obama has or will. Following your logic suggests that every president since Hoover has been a dyed-in-the-wool liberal masquerading as a center-right president.

 

I'm also curious how it's NOT a sliding scale; "he did a liberal thing and is therefore a liberal" could be easily replaced with "he did a conservative thing and is therefore a conservative".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Bush took over Wall Street and spent more money on health care then Obama has or will. Following your logic suggests that every president since Hoover has been a dyed-in-the-wool liberal masquerading as a center-right president.

 

GW's only conservative issue that he followed through on was National Defense. He paid lip service to fixing Social Security, but it didn't happen because it was supposed to stay in the black until 2037. Unfortunately, 2037 seems to have come about 27 years early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, looking at Obama's voting history and his revelations, he has been much more liberal than he is making out to be. He even admitted he knew he couldn't advance his political career unless he appeared to be more "centric." He ran on a liberal campaign in one of the IL races and got destroyed, came back, ran as a centrist, and used a loophole to remove all of his competition so he won by being the only name on the ballot anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, looks like the Obama thread is now about smoking and the war thread is now about Obama.

 

If Obama ends "Don't ask, don't tell", closes Gitmo, and rounds out health insurance by increasing the fine for non-compliance (to close the giant loophole that many people, including Fahr have pointed out), then I'd say he's had a pretty good first term.

 

He's been solid on defense/security (He's fallen more in line with where I'd have put McCain, whom I prefed on defense issues).

He's been solid on healthcare.

He's been solid on energy.

 

The economy is bigger than any president but it looks to be turning the corner and employment will start to climb again. A full blown depression was avoided and if smart regulations are put back in place to avoid it happening again in the future then he'll get a solid grade on that.

 

2 x supreme court picks. I hope they keep balancing out Bush Jr's two picks, the SCOTUS has been getting consistently more conservative for the last 30-40 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, looks like the Obama thread is now about smoking and the war thread is now about Obama.

 

If Obama ends "Don't ask, don't tell", closes Gitmo, and rounds out health insurance by increasing the fine for non-compliance (to close the giant loophole that many people, including Fahr have pointed out), then I'd say he's had a pretty good first term.

 

He's been solid on defense/security (He's fallen more in line with where I'd have put McCain, whom I prefed on defense issues).

He's been solid on healthcare.

He's been solid on energy.

 

The economy is bigger than any president but it looks to be turning the corner and employment will start to climb again. A full blown depression was avoided and if smart regulations are put back in place to avoid it happening again in the future then he'll get a solid grade on that.

 

2 x supreme court picks. I hope they keep balancing out Bush Jr's two picks, the SCOTUS has been getting consistently more conservative for the last 30-40 years.

 

Neither of Bushes picks changed the balance of the court. Both were conservative Reagan picks replaced by nearly identical picks.

 

Alito matches Sandra, they are both fairly conservative but slightly more to the middle, while Roberts is the spitting image of Rehnquist.

 

So far Obama has done almost the same, keeping the balance very similar. I think you will actually find Obama is in a sticky situation right now. He will be feeling pressure to put a liberal judge in, but he may be unable to push through a liberal judge and may have to figure out a more centrist judge... Which would actually balance out his first pick.

 

Obama's first pick skewed a moderate-left judge with a liberal judge. Now he might replace a liberal judge with a moderate-left, which should leave the balance almost exactly where it was at for the last so many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alito matches Sandra, they are both fairly conservative but slightly more to the middle, while Roberts is the spitting image of Rehnquist.

 

I have to disagree with the comparison between O'Connor and Alito.

 

O'Connor was a conservative swing vote, who voted with the liberal bloc around 25% of the time. Alito votes conservative 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with the comparison between O'Connor and Alito.

 

O'Connor was a conservative swing vote, who voted with the liberal bloc around 25% of the time. Alito votes conservative 100%.

 

Which, IMO, put the court back to the status quo ante, since O'Connor was a Reagan appointee who turned out to be more liberal after she was on the bench than she seemed beforehand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with the comparison between O'Connor and Alito.

 

O'Connor was a conservative swing vote, who voted with the liberal bloc around 25% of the time. Alito votes conservative 100%.

 

I don't know where you are pulling those numbers from, but Alito is not "100%" conservative. Just look at his religion/free speech rulings. He might be more conservative then O'Connor, but you can say the same about Sotomayor. She is more liberal than the Stevens.

 

You could use some funny %s here, Steven's voted with the conservative bloc 25% of the time and Sotomayor votes 100% liberal. So there ya go "25%" made up.

 

I still say assigning an arbitrary number is really hard to do without looking at all of the cases and comparing, especially if we use prior record to judge them... For example, Sotomayor came from a fairly specific case workload that would skew numbers because it lacks a variety of cases to judge her "leanings" on.

 

But claiming that Sotomayor is 100% liberal or Alito is 100% conservative is just bogus, because neither of them are on the far end. They are both more towards the center than the extremes.

 

Anyway, if you want a somewhat reasonable comparison, here is a site that has a decent chart. Best I could find. SCOTUS rankings

 

Or the research here.. clicky

 

Basically...

O'Connor .680

Allito .740

Renquist .815

Roberts .753

Souter .374

Sotonmoyor ???

Stevens .341

NewObama ???

 

So, unless my math fails me, we went from 68% to 74% which is 6% different towards conservative for O'Connor to Allito... And 81.5% to 75.3% or -6.2%.

 

So the bush appointees were even. Just like I said, they balanced each other out. I was a bit surprised actually that Rhenquist was just THAT conservative, looking at the charts he's "second" and Roberts is "fourth" but its still a fairly large difference.

 

Anyway, this was through 2006. The balance was kept through the appointments of the two Bush justices.

 

Now it is to be seen just how liberal Sotonmoyor actually is, since her record is fairly hard to check. I would only imagine she'd fall at or below Souter though.

 

The new Obama pick is totally up in the air, but as you can see, Stevens wasn't the most liberal judge, but currently he is the second most liberal judge on the bench.

 

Using the numbers, Roberts and Allito are both about 25% from the center, while Stevens was 15%.

 

Just for informational sake, here is the current balance in terms of the last 70 years.

 

Clarence Thomas 82%

John Roberts 75%

Antonin Scalia 76%

Samuel Alito 74%

Anthony Kennedy 64%

Stephen Breyer 37%

John Paul Stevens 34%

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 31%

 

Sonia Sotomayor ~35% (just a guess so far)

 

So, the balance of the past decade+ has been pretty much this exact set of justices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×