patrick.net

RE Cartoon in post 2... looks like clever use of Guernica imagery.

Selective Memory is an interesting Anthropological Effect:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4540958/ns/nbc_nightly_news_with_brian_williams/t/osama-bin-laden-missed-opportunities/

indigenous says

The US spent what 2 trillion on this exercise, but now we should just throw that away?

You prefer throwing good money after bad? Hey, I have a couple houses over here you might like to buy...

https://www.ted.com/talks/sean_gourley_on_the_mathematics_of_war

cc0 says

You prefer throwing good money after bad? Hey, I have a couple houses over here you might like to buy...

Is that what Gouley is saying?

Don't know, it seems like the thing to do?

Call it Crazy says

The bottom line, 29 Dem senators voted for it...

Do you have a point here

Yes: that it's okay, because your enemies do it.

Time for another thread titled "Why are liberals always pointing at Bush?"

indigenous says

Yup they should not have gone into Iraq, but leaving zero troops there is O's mistake.

What do you want them to do? We can't stay there permanently.

I think there is no good solution available here.

Call it Crazy says

Unfortunately, the politicians get the last word...

Another fine example of the many benefit of top down organizing.

Another fun fact is O's new improved rules of engagement.

He fails to realize he has no business introducing rules in a knife fight or a gun fight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPqhm36sjVE

If Morman was elected, we would not be in this multinational pickel.

O'Revelations Realizer is making us all walk the Maxwell Planck

Entitlemented says

8) Obama does nothing in Syria. Russia sees this and goes into Ukraine.

9) Korea sees this and tests missiles frequently

10) China sees this and is trying to gain islands around their sea in conflict with Japan, Vietnam etc.

11) The complete lack of foreign policy, the fast withdrawals is saying to all communists (or wish they were ) countries that we are losing our will, and so with that Europe as well.

12) Drug cartels are still in control in many parts of Mexico.

Clinton, Bush, made mistakes that they wish they would have dont differently (See A).

But Obama is undoing all the work of Reagan, Clinton and Bush in support of Terrorist and Communist Regimes. That Terrorist/Drug Cartels and Communist Regimes have more in common with each other than Liberty Egalitarism, and Freedom.

This is a Cluster and Obama's passivity is the root cause.

Wow, all that cause and effect from Obama handling Syria fairly well (all things considered) and wisely winding Iraq and Afghanistan down.

Nice try on the spin, but I don't see it at all. The cause and effect you claim exists is just a bunch of unbelievable lies as far as I can tell. Unblievable. Nonsensical. Propaganda.

A lot of Presidents would have been more decisive about Syria, and would have made the wrong decision. What kind of idiot is impressed by that ? OR by what we did in Iraq ? You think decisivly making terrible decisions impresses the rest of the world ? It might scare them. That's true. I guess to some that's a good thing.

I guess what the world thinks of Obama and his foreign policy is whatever Newscorp and talk radio want it to be ?

mell says

Independents and Libertarians opposed the wear as wel

What planet were you on?

The libertarians I knew at the time were red-faced with screaming "Liberals are friends of Saddam if they oppose this!" over and over.

Same for the Patriot Act: all the native samples of Gunnutus Americanus, having lectured us all about trading liberty for safety, insisted we trade liberty for safety at that time.

This was the moment when I fully embraced the notion that 90% of libertarians are simply card-carrying Republicans who won't hide the card.

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

The libertarians I knew at the time were red-faced with screaming "Liberals are friends of Saddam if they oppose this!" over and over.

By definition that is NOT Libertarian, your story does not add up.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

You forgot about libertarians gagging on bankster cocks and shouting MOMMMMEEEEEEEE when a skin head fucks them in the ass.

You got purdy lips

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

The libertarians I knew at the time were red-faced with screaming "Liberals are friends of Saddam if they oppose this!" over and over.

You can look em up if you know how to use the web - I gave you one name. By the way there is a whole Libertarian party, no need to go Democrat if you truly abhor that war so much. Same for the patriot act - you will go nowhere by voting either Democrat or Republican. But you can still support a Democrat or presidential candidate (e.g. Ron Paul) who does not conform to the party line.

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

Same for the Patriot Act: all the native samples of Gunnutus Americanus, having lectured us all about trading liberty for safety, insisted we trade liberty for safety at that time.

What planet are you on? In this day and age where the prez can drone-kill anyone and go to war with everyone without any formal declaration he can certainly easily veto the patriot act (extension). What did Obummer do? Oh right, he signed it.

marcus says

Nice try on the spin, but I don't see it at all. The cause and effect you claim exists is just a bunch of unbelievable lies as far as I can tell. Unblievable. Nonsensical. Propaganda.

On the propaganda, name one item that you can logically dismiss using past historicals or logical induction.

Instead of calling names, either tell me what is incorrect or we can wait a few years to see who was propaganda.

Propaganda example: The cold war is over.

FortWayne says

We can't stay there permanently.

I agree, but we still have substantial troops in Europe and some in Japan and Korea.

mell says

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

Same for the Patriot Act: all the native samples of Gunnutus Americanus, having lectured us all about trading liberty for safety, insisted we trade liberty for safety at that time.

What planet are you on? In this day and age where the prez can drone-kill anyone and go to war with everyone without any formal declaration he can certainly easily veto the patriot act (extension). What did Obummer do? Oh right, he signed it.

Yes: Obama perpetuated the Patriot Act.

Now how, exactly does this exonerate libertarians in 2003 who lined up to support it?

Is it time for yet another thread complaining how Dems are always pointing at Bush when confronted with Obama's crimes, or might we admit that yours is a prime example of "Yeah, but Obama did it toooo!"

Entitlemented says

On the propaganda, name one item that you can logically dismiss using past historicals or logical induction.

You stated 9 and 10 occurred as a consequence of 8. North Korea has been testing missiles and threatening the development of nuclear weapons for how long? And disputes over the Senkaku islands have been going on for decades. So yes, to claim those are down to the very good idea of not getting directly drawn into military action in Syria is really rather stretching it, wouldn't you say?

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

Yes: Obama perpetuated the Patriot Act.

Now how, exactly does this exonerate libertarians in 2003 who lined up to support it?

I didn't say there were a lot of Libertarians anywhere. Those who voted in favor are not Libertarians. However, just because somebody votes once against a war like Iraq or the patriot act does not make them instantly Libertarian. It's a question of consistency and you have to have a consistent record. The people you refer to are not Libertarians.

I don't understand this. Don't you see... it is not about a political party. It is about America. Why is this so difficult for so many? We are being played as if we can make a difference.

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

Yes: Obama perpetuated the Patriot Act.

Now how, exactly does this exonerate libertarians in 2003 who lined up to support it?

Go back to watching Fox News.

from LP News

[March 19. 2002] The Libertarian National Committee has voted to call for the repeal of the USA/Patriot Act, charging that it "sacrifices" the liberties of American citizens.

At its meeting in Evergreen, Colorado on March 16, the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) voted 10 to zero, with one abstention, to urge the repeal of the bill, which was rushed through Congress in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The resolution said the USA/Patriot Act "sacrifices many of our liberties and curtails many of our freedoms in the name of military security, thereby compromising some of the purposes for which [the United States] government was created."

While "securing our liberties and protecting our rights are among the primary purposes of the United States government," Libertarians "do not support sacrificing our liberties and curtailing our rights in the name of military security," the resolution noted.

Therefore, "the Libertarian National Committee calls for the repeal of the USA/Patriot Act," it stated.

The resolution was introduced by LNC Secretary Steve Givot.

LP Executive Director Steve Dasbach applauded the LNC's action, and said the resolution will help define what Libertarians stand for in the post-September 11 world.

"The Libertarian Party has previously endorsed appropriate military action to bring to justice the ruthless terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11," he said. "However, with this resolution, the LNC has drawn a line in the sand, and made it clear that Libertarians will not tolerate any infringement of our basic civil liberties in the name of combating terrorism.

"When Republicans and Democrats passed the USA/Patriot Act, they did an easy thing, given the mood of the public. When the LNC voted to repeal the bill, they did a difficult thing -- because real patriotism entails defending the Bill of Rights, even when doing so is unpopular, instead of sacrificing fundamental American principles during a time of crisis."

The USA/Patriot Act gave the U.S. attorney general the power to install the carnivore e-mail snooping system without a court warrant; expanded the legal definition of a "terrorist;" and made it easier for the government to tap multiple phones as part of a "roving wiretap."

The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, after passing the U.S. Senate 98-1, and the U.S. House 356-66.

Oilwelldoctor says

I don't understand this. Don't you see... it is not about a political party. It is about America. Why is this so difficult for so many? We are being played as if we can make a difference.

I am part of each species.

But why do dudes like Clinton get a pass when dating other women in office and lying, and Christie get pummeled for 3 months for parking his car on a bridge in NY?

Entitlemented says

Oilwelldoctor says

I don't understand this. Don't you see... it is not about a political party. It is about America. Why is this so difficult for so many? We are being played as if we can make a difference.

I am part of each species.

But why do dudes like Clinton get a pass when dating other women in office and lying, and Christie get pummeled for 3 months for parking his car on a bridge in NY?

Err...

Bgmall I oppose concentrations of power in institutions, corporations, political parties, states, mobs and governments etal as they lead to abuse

bgamall4 says

smaulgld says

that's rich-taking people's money would balance the budget- the assumption there is it's better for the government to have the money than individuals.

If the individuals are in the top 1 percent I would say yes, it is better if the government has it. For the rest of us, no.

Why not take it from the top 2% and give it to the government? Or top 3%
In a democracy eventually the top 49% will have all their money turned over to the government if that type of confiscatory mentality takes hold

bgamall4 says

But government protected us in the Great Depression from the banksters. Just because it isn't doing so now does not mean it can't in the future.

That is ABSOLUTELY not true. In fact just the opposite they ran the money supply up in the 20s to create the problem in the 1st place.

Bernanke "the expert" will say that they did not keep the money supply going in 1929 and keep the banks liquid in 1933 but that is propaganda.

As the Roosevelt administration stopped the usual remedy for a run on the bank because it was a private market solution. IOW the run on the banks was COMPLETELY caused by FDR.

The oversupply of money was completely caused by the Fed.

bgamall4 says

The Fed and the government are two different entities.

Technically but not in reality, who appoints the Fed chairman?

bgamall4 says

the financial modernization act and the commodities modernization act repealed those laws.

They would not have had any impact on the meltdown in 2007,
Glass Steagall did not regulate derivatives.

bgamall4 says

So, Indigenous, you are wrong on this. The Fed is a private bank.

Not really

mell says

Short of a unanimous filibuster, the Democrats had no way of stopping the Iraq war.

Why do you think the Dems did not want war, history indicates otherwise?

bgamall4 says

That is a lie. Those laws would have stopped the liar loans along with the FIRREA Act of 1989 that made banks subject to civil penalties for lending to people who could not pay it back.

That was not a majority of the problem as indicated by AF.

It was a bunch of stuff but the thing that sent it ballistic was derivatives because they were so leveraged.

bgamall4 says

But the commodities laws in place regulated derivatives. The repeal of both the derivatives laws and Glass Steagall were a tag team act by Phil and Wendy Gramm, and those led to the housing bubble.

Don't know nor really care

bgamall4 says

Indigenous, read these Wikipedia articles about the

1. Commodities Futures Modernization Act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

and:

The Financial Services Modernization Act (IE the Repeal of Glass-Steagall):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

As you can see, they are twin laws set to undermine the financial system.

No, TLTR

Give me the reader digest version without any generalities. I am not that interested.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

I think it's pretty clear:

The CRA forced Bush's hand

You got purdy lips

bgamall4 says

If you aren't that interested why are you on Patrick.net which talks about the housing bubble and bust?

Because you are not correct.

bgamall4 says

The repeal of the commodity futures act allows gambling to be part of the financial system. It allows insurance to be sold on the bets. The insurance is unregulated. The bankers can take large positions in commodities now as well because of the new rules. They are able to corner the markets in oil, food, etc.

I don't think so. Rules have changed to prevent banks taking undue risk at potentially tax payer expense.

bgamall4 says

The insurance is unregulated.

No it is highly regulated, otherwise it would not be insurance.

AIG had some branches of their business exposed but none of it was the insurance part of AIG.

My understanding was bankers had a lot of exposure but Goldman and Morgan Stanley would have been done. At the same time a lot of this stuff is overblown due to the nature of derivatives being used as hedges.

mell says

Democrats could have stopped it.

again, talking (D) vs (R) confuses the issue.

The real divide in this country is left vs right, liberal vs. conservative, progressive vs. reactionary.

The left was powerless to stop the right's adventurism in the mideast, 2001-2003.

Not all (D)s are leftists, e.g. the (D) Senators that voted for war.

Kerry and Clinton excepted. I don't know WTF they were really thinking with their votes, other than in game theory terms casting a useless opposing vote in 2002 would have killed their careers if a) Saddam's regime had actually had WMDs of some significance, and/or if b) perchance the reconstruction had gone off as hoped.

Being wrong in 2002 and voting for Bush's march to war obviously did not fatally hurt their respective political careers, so if you do a 2x2 decision matrix it was a no-brainer for Dems to vote yes for war in 2002.

Bellingham Bill says

Kerry and Clinton excepted. I don't know WTF they were really thinking with their votes, other than in game theory terms casting a useless opposing vote in 2002 would have killed their careers if a) Saddam's regime had actually had WMDs of some significance, and/or if b) the perchance reconstruction had gone off as hoped.

I seem to have forgotten like many what happened for the 10 years prior to 2002..

how long has Saddam been delaying and blocking inspectors. Your ONLY legitimate critism could be that Bush I should have taken Saddams head back in 1992 and put all of Iraq under UN control.

1998. Where did he mention invading?

Bigsby says

1998. Where did he mention invading?

There is a reason we have a military.. to enforce resolutions.
It goes back to 1992...

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

Bigsby says

Is this supposed to be a joke?

You seem to be short on memory.. do you recall anything from 1992 to 2002 ?

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

Is this supposed to be a joke?

You seem to be short on memory.. do you recall anything from 1992 to 2002 ?

Are you trying to be a parody of yourself?