Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Phryxis wrote:No question, we are ultimately responsible... But a collective consciousness can't really "blame" itself, certainly not on the scale that a single person (or the 600 odd people in Congress, White House, other important positions). 300 million people will just do what 300 million people will do. But one person can fundamentally change themselves, and when 300 million people are relying on them not being a slow, they should fundamentally change themselves.

Anyone seen this robot before?

It moves by modulating sections of itself. Someone else does it... but whatever, they have a single goal. If the U.S. was this blob, many different groups of people would have a section of their own. Instead of one person, there are an awful lot of people, and more often than not, they completely disagree. If the U.S. is 60% of itself, I can't honestly rationalize that being the case.

We are a giant amorphous blob...

Phryxis wrote:
Sure. But I'd argue that this one is significantly more significant than existing leadership is capable of resolving.

I mean, take WWII. Very significant event, and American confronted it. What's going on now would be like Pearl Harbor happening, and then Congress is saying "ok, wait, something's going on in Europe?"

I don't think we've hit a point which analogous is to Pearl Harbor as of yet. Right now, I see our position as being roughly equivalent to the political environment just before Pearl Harbor when Congress was doing everything in its power to avoid joining the war in Europe. We will get to Pearl Harbor, of course, because democracies rarely do anything unless they're kicked in the head first.

Part of the problem is that, for progress to happen, we need an Executive dominated by people who are willing to ignore the will of their own party in order to facilitate change. That's difficult to come by given the method by which Presidential campaigns are selected. I mean, just look at what happened to McCain when the Republican machine got hold of him.

Phryxis wrote:
Back around 2000 when we ran a surplus under Clinton, and with a Republican controlled Congress, there were major cuts to military spending. The only people even vaguely aware of how to compromise are the Republicans, and I think they've probably forgotten.

Once upon a time both parties were capable of compromise. George H.W. cut the military budget, and raised taxes. Clinton wanted to push Social Security towards a privatized model, and supported free trade.

Truthfully, I think that the notion of the military as a Republican pet project faded into the background after the Cold War, and that 9/11 pushed it back into the spot light; turning it into the sort of sacred cow we see today.

Phryxis wrote:
My guess is that we won't pay down the debt by any conventional means. We're not going to simply run a surplus for enough years that it's gone. Instead, its' going to be some sort of globalization compromise, some sort of tariff deal with China, some accounting trickery where it's no longer relevant, or at least not accounting for $300 billion a year to service it.

I'm not necessarily concerned with the debt itself. I'm concerned with deficit. A large national debt can hamstring the state, but it is possible to carry one while operating in consistency with acceptable standards; at least as long as the budget remains balanced over a ten year period. Note that I'm only using the 10 year figure as I consider the expectation that any organization will balance its budget every year to be unrealistic.

Phryxis wrote:
Odd, I took you for more of a conservative than that... But then ago, you're from Chicago, right?

Yep. I don't like dealing in labels, but if I had to pick one I would call myself a rationalist. I vote for the people who seem likely to pursue a policy agenda which at least addresses those areas which concern me; even if that agenda does not directly ameliorate the matter.

Phryxis wrote:
Do you regret your vote? If you could choose now between Hillary, McCain and Obama, who would you pick?

Not at all. Obama passed a health care bill that, while dysfunctional, will keep the issue on the table for years to come; which should force both sides of the aisle to actively work on the problem. Additionally, his foreign policy agenda is very close to what I would consider ideal.

It would have taken a lot for me to vote for McCain, as I can't easily envision a situation in which a third Bush term (which is what I expected, given the state of the campaign) would have been desirable. Between Hillary and Obama it would be a toss up. On one hand Hilary would probably have been a more assertive executive, and would very likely have been less polarizing (added bonus: Palin is less likely to be tapped). On the other, Obama is the better orator, and seems to be more effective at rallying Democrats to his issues. I'm not sure there would have any significant differences between the two of them, and that includes the manner in which the oil spill is being handled.

Phryxis wrote:
No question, we are ultimately responsible... But a collective consciousness can't really "blame" itself, certainly not on the scale that a single person (or the 600 odd people in Congress, White House, other important positions). 300 million people will just do what 300 million people will do. But one person can fundamentally change themselves, and when 300 million people are relying on them not being a slow, they should fundamentally change themselves.

My contention would be that the general criticism isn't that so-and-so is incompetent, but that so-and-so is incompetent because he didn't pick the solution that I like. That's my most pronounced issue with the electorate of today; it doesn't seem to want prosperity in general, but a specific sort prosperity.

Because, if we were friends, who would I hate?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Funnily enough you sound like a Tea Partier except they are right wing.

Well yes, I'm using the english language. Presumably they use it as well. Do I also sound like your television?

I promise you though, I am not secretly your television.

do you have an actual point to make?

My TV is Japanese -- I mean, it's in Japan and Japanese programmes come out of it, unless I switch to the satellite foreign channels.

The point I want to make is that this thread contains a couple of left-wingers who are all anti-government and their complaints sound very much like the complaints of the Tea Partiers.

That is just an observation that disillusionment with the political process is not confined to one side of the spectrum of thought. The Tea Partiers at least are re-engaging with the system, whatever you may think of their ideas. Being right-wing, and therefore in opposition, makes that easier at the moment.

The USA has a deeper democracy than the UK, in that voting in elections at various levels is more frequent and regular.

However voting can't lift the country out of malaise. Everything in the end comes down to the decisions and behaviour of people. The electorate can decide to be left-wing, or right-wing or centrist, and they still have to do the work whichever way they choose.

I honestly have little use for "left" and "right" labels. The concept comes from France, the "right" being the aristocrats, the "left" being the commoners. In modern times those still basically remain the differences.
The problem in American politics is there are no "commoners" in office, only those claiming to be "for" the common people. Which party that is is up for debate.

I call my self an Independant. I vote for who I think is best suited for the job they run for. In 2008 I split my vote... McCain/Biden. Had Hilary Clinton won the primary She would have had my support.

Concerning the Gulf crisis, I think Clinton would have handled things better. That said, it is still an issue that would have tested ANY President. For all his speaches, Obama is looking to get a FAIL on this one issue, especially in the deep south.

Most people though do use the left and right labels so it is worth understanding what they mean.

/Concerning the Gulf crisis, I think Clinton would have handled things better. That said, it is still an issue that would have tested ANY President. For all his speaches, Obama is looking to get a FAIL on this one issue, especially in the deep south.

Oh man, the deep south is going to disapprove of something Obama did or didn't do?

STOP THE PRESSES!

I think you just have sucky "friends" mate. Im from the North East which is a traditionally labour area, as a result you get 13 year old kids shrieking about Thatcher and how they will leave the country when the conservatives win the election even when they dont have any idea what they are talking about. It gets ingrained in people by their parents almost at birth around here...

But anyway, as a result i am the exact opposite of nearly all of my friends, but it doesnt matter at all.

One of my longest and closest friends who i socialise with almost every weekend is a screaming liberal.. literally knocks on peoples doors telling them to vote labour. He is also alarmingly anti-Isreal when i support them, and he thinks that 9/11 was an inside job, and i think that it utterly ludicrous, but we are atill close pals, we just have lots of arguments about politics when were getting boozed, but we have never once fell out over it.

I find it very odd that your so called mates would act like that. I dont think your political views can destroy a real friendship no matter how opposite they may be. I think your better off without the idiots frankly!

sexiest_hero wrote:I'm a Independent Lib here in the USA. Although I'm Black I was a Clinton supporter. I have voted for some republicans before, (Charlie Crist) And liked huckabee before he went crazy. I've noticed a bunch of my buddies have gotten to the point where they don't want to hang out because of my political views. Now I don't mention them at all but I do tell people who ask that I lean to the left. Some of my right leaning friends and their parents have been asking my why do I hate my country, and one accused me of being a flat out traitor. I understand people can have different views. I understand debate can be very heated. What I don't get is why people who have been friends of family can hate over something so small as this.

Does anybody else have this issue?

It helps to shut the hell up about politics around your friends. Not everyone believes your particular flavor of bs. It doesn't matter if it left wing bs or right wing bs, its still bs and most people don't want to hear it falling out of your mouth. Its a politeness thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:

You're a very upbeat guy.

If you can name one thing in American politics to be upbeat about, I'll... Well, I'll disagree with you and then frown at my monitor for a while.

I can. Incumbents are hunted animal this year. Death to the Clan Macleod!

ShumaGorath wrote:

/Concerning the Gulf crisis, I think Clinton would have handled things better. That said, it is still an issue that would have tested ANY President. For all his speaches, Obama is looking to get a FAIL on this one issue, especially in the deep south.

Oh man, the deep south is going to disapprove of something Obama did or didn't do?

STOP THE PRESSES!

They have got a right to not like him right now. Obama has been on a campain to punish those states that did not/do not support him. It is one thing to direct new jobs being creater towards your political power base and stealing/removing existing jobs from depressed states to give to your political power base.

You might have imagined that non-Obama-voting states, being conservative and therefore approving of smaller government, would support the reduction of federal subsidies and job within their borders.

focusedfire wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

/Concerning the Gulf crisis, I think Clinton would have handled things better. That said, it is still an issue that would have tested ANY President. For all his speaches, Obama is looking to get a FAIL on this one issue, especially in the deep south.

Oh man, the deep south is going to disapprove of something Obama did or didn't do?

STOP THE PRESSES!

They have got a right to not like him right now. Obama has been on a campain to punish those states that did not/do not support him. It is one thing to direct new jobs being creater towards your political power base and stealing/removing existing jobs from depressed states to give to your political power base.

I should note, whetgher you agree or disagree there is a feeling now that that has occurred in several red states ala oil spill.

Kilkrazy wrote:You might have imagined that non-Obama-voting states, being conservative and therefore approving of smaller government, would support the reduction of federal subsidies and job within their borders.

Not just government jobs KK. His admunistration weighed in on the United/Continental merger to rush it through even though the consensus is that it is a bad decision. The merger would eliminate many jobs during a depressed economy, would overload the maintenance capacity of the stream-lined company, and leave the combined companies in a fragile financial position all in order to move the continental hub to create jobs in chicago.

Also check my reply to Frazz below.

Frazzled wrote:
I should note, whetgher you agree or disagree there is a feeling now that that has occurred in several red states ala oil spill.

Yes, you are right that there is a feeling. The feeling is that Obama is using the spill to push a personal agenda that is damaging to the Economy. Obama made promise to his supporters to restrict/end off shore drilling during his term as president, but when he got in office he found that doing so would cripple the economy further and the blame for such would fall upon his shoulders.
The current feeling is that the Obama administration has intentionally drug their feet/obstructed progress on handling the spill while pushing this agenda.

Whether this feeling is correct or not, the Gulf states do have a right to criticize a president that has invested the majority of his energy into shutting down off-shore drilling rather than handling the clean-up.


Edit: Spelling & transposed word

Exactly. The only thing coherently done by the Federal adminstration has been to shut down the Gulf. Expect several hundred thousand layoffs within three months.

part time guy supposedly in charge of the cleanup
part time guys supposedly in charge of the payouts
committee thats supposed to speedily look into the actual accident and the the GOM developers are waiting on biased and lacking expertise.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100620/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_commission

sexiest_hero wrote:I'm a Independent Lib here in the USA. Although I'm Black I was a Clinton supporter. I have voted for some republicans before, (Charlie Crist) And liked huckabee before he went crazy. I've noticed a bunch of my buddies have gotten to the point where they don't want to hang out because of my political views. Now I don't mention them at all but I do tell people who ask that I lean to the left. Some of my right leaning friends and their parents have been asking my why do I hate my country, and one accused me of being a flat out traitor. I understand people can have different views. I understand debate can be very heated. What I don't get is why people who have been friends of family can hate over something so small as this.

Does anybody else have this issue?

First, when you say "independent lib", do you mean liberal or libertarian? Also, I wasn't aware of the connection between being black, and being a Clinton supporter. Hasn't the African American vote tended to lean toward democrats since the "new left" took over in the 70s ( BTW, with my limited knowledge of politics, I consider Lyndon Johnson the last "traditional" democrat, meaning in my mind, a democrat with a platform focusing on labor with strong support from rural areas).

With that out of the way, I want to discuss what you're actually asking in your post. I always read your posts in OT Hero, because while I don't agree with many or perhaps most of your opinions, you express them well and challenge my viewpoints. Frankly, I'm glad to see that because one of the things that bothered me about the last election is that I personally believe that many votes from the African American community went to Obama simply because of the color of his skin. My wife actually had an issue where a black co-worker was asking who she voted for, and when my wife didn't tell her, she assumed she voted McCain and accused her of racism because of it. It actually ended in a hostile workplace complaint. The ironic thing is that my wife voted for Obama. The point was, it was none of her business who she voted for, and that race had nothing to do with it. Please note that I think most African Americans who voted for Obama, or McCain for that matter, could give very good reasons for their vote, and that the minority who voted on the basis of race is a tragic case of people missing the entire point.

I certainly feel for you and hope you don't lose friends because of your opinions. It is sad that the climate of politics in this country has gotten to this point. There doesn't seem to be much room for give and take anymore, and all that is left is a lot of name calling. I think the best thing for you would be to find someone to converse with who has opinions that lean the other direction but who will discuss them with you instead of calling you names. The trouble you have is not the result of those people being mean, or even stupid, but is the unfortunate result of propaganda and a confrontational mindset that has somehow become accepted as normal in this country.

Of course, it could be the case that your buddies don't like discussing politics, and perhaps they are frustrated because you bring it up. If that is the case, they should just tell you they don't want to discuss politics and ask that you accept that they feel a certain way and that they don't want to argue it with you. You might just flat out ask if that is the problem.

focusedfire wrote:His admunistration weighed in on the AA/Continental merger to rush it through even though the consensus is that it is a bad decision. The merger would eliminate many jobs during a depressed economy, would overload the maintenance capacity of the stream-lined company, and leave the combined companies in a fragile financial position all in order to move the continental hub to create jobs in chicago.

Do you mean the United-Continental merger?

dogma wrote:Do you mean the United-Continental merger?

Your correct. Sorry about that, I sometimes transpose words when writing/typing fast. Don't know why but seems to happen a bit more as I get older.

Thanks for catching that, I'll go back and fix it.

Consensus of who?

To play devil's advocate, there has been overcapacity in the US airline industry for over a decade and various airlines have been straining to obey market forces and go bust.

A lot of government money was put in to sustain them after 9/11.

Consolidation is inevitable.

Chicago is a good site for a domestic hub. There probably should be another one in the south, but that may be economically unsustainable.

I would also contend that this particular merger was seen as being highly likely well before the Obama Administration made mention of it.

I think the bottom line is that people need to try some understanding before they let their emotions get out of control.

There was a time when I was a blithering republican. I was basically an opinionated redneck(I'm from the south). Overtime I have begun to see that yes...there are two sides to the issue and that there may be some middle ground in there somewhere.

I basically tend to listen more now than I used to. I am still very conservative, but I do try to understand where my fellow man is coming from.

For example, I am white but I attend a predominately black Church, the largest African American Church denomination(COGIC) to be exact. So being a minority within a minority institution, has helped me to see where black people are coming from, and why they tend to vote traditionally democrat. I certainly don't agree with their choice, usually, but I do have compassion and understand why they do vote that way.

So the answer is understanding and listening before speaking.

edit....this is why I do not like the Hannities and the Becks anymore, because people like Hannity will shout you down instead of listening to you, and Beck just fearmongers anymore.
GG

[quote=focusedfire

I'm a part of an ever growing number of disenfranchised voters that have become aware that the election process on the national level has been hijacked by corporate contributions and is nothing but a horse and pony show.


Amen brother!

Kilkrazy wrote:Consensus of who?

To play devil's advocate, there has been overcapacity in the US airline industry for over a decade and various airlines have been straining to obey market forces and go bust.

A lot of government money was put in to sustain them after 9/11.

Consolidation is inevitable.

Chicago is a good site for a domestic hub. There probably should be another one in the south, but that may be economically unsustainable.

Problem is that they are pulling the hub and all of the jobs associated with it out of Houston and moving them to Chicago with no benefit to cost effectiveness but rather costs increases for putting a major hub in an area that already has an over abundance of air traffic. The merger as stands represents a serious blow to air traffic safety and increases cost in both labour and fuel.

dogma wrote:I would also contend that this particular merger was seen as being highly likely well before the Obama Administration made mention of it.

Yes, the attempt was likely but the success was not so. Evidence to support this is the number of individuals that are backing the lawsuit to stop the merger. The lawsuit is currently considered to have a very strong chance of stopping the merger even with the Obama administrations support.

This merger was back burnered until a friendlly administration would rubber stamp the approval. The reason is that there are many iissues with the Merger and how it will affect(Overcrowd) certain areas of US airspace and that the proposed maintenance force will not be sufficient to properly care for the aircraft.

focusedfire wrote:
Yes, the attempt was likely but the success was not so. Evidence to support this is the number of individuals that are backing the lawsuit to stop the merger. The lawsuit is currently considered to have a very strong chance of stopping the merger even with the Obama administrations support.

Considered by whom? Just because someone 'backs' a lawsuit it does not follow that said lawsuit has merit.

focusedfire wrote:
This merger was back burnered until a friendlly administration would rubber stamp the approval. The reason is that there are many iissues with the Merger and how it will affect(Overcrowd) certain areas of US airspace and that the proposed maintenance force will not be sufficient to properly care for the aircraft.

Neither of which have anything to do with antitrust legislation or the Justice Department, making them irrelevant to the merger. If the federal government still regulated airlines directly, then you would have a point.

Additionally, I don't see how there can be an issue with overcrowding. Any routes which are currently flown by both Continental, and United are unlikely to suddenly feature more aircraft. It isn't as though Houston will cease to be a regional hub, it simply won't be the location of the amalgamated corporate headquarters.

I disagree with lots of acquaintances on all kinds of issues. Whether or not that amounts to anything meaningful depends on the disagreement and how our discussion of it plays out.

There are a few people I actually look to talk to engage on various political issues, some of whom I agree with and some of whom I don’t. There is a lot of value to talking or debating with people, and I feel I’ve developed my own opinions and understanding of the world considerably through these conversations.

There are other people, some smart, some not so smart, who can get very emotional in discussion, and I tend to avoid talking about politics with them, even if I might agree with them. It would never affect a friendship though, because it’s just politics.

There’s another kind of person though, for whom their political beliefs are their identity. Whatever faction they belong to is good and the only sensible path (be it conservatism, liberalism, whatever) and there are people opposed to my faction, who are bad and wrong people who always believe the wrong thing and are generally evil and self-serving. It’s a fundamentally stupid way of looking at the world, it really does make people dumber, and not just in their politics – once you start using any kind of ideology as a filter over the world you stop making useful and unique observations.

In real life I’ve probably met about a dozen people like the above, mostly old school left wing class warriors and I can’t say I’m sorry any of them are gone from my life. From what I understand the myth of the culture war is a growing thing in the US, so there’s likely a lot more of these types over there, of all political stripes. This kind of person, is just not a person worth bothering with, to be perfectly honest.

Frazzled wrote:I can. Incumbents are hunted animal this year. Death to the Clan Macleod!

Yeah! In the recent batch of primaries, of the 74 incumbents up for re-election only 73 won pre-selection. That showed them!

I've never had this problem since I and and most people I hang out with just don't give a feth about politics, cause their all doing something wrong anyway.