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.

 d-usa wrote:
But Al-Jazeera is the Muslim islama-news infiltrating the US!

You know, the discussions I have read in the last few days have convinced me that if I wasn't already so overwhelmingly busy with work, a fun pastime would be starting a variety of fake news sites, posting outlandish stories on them (citing each other as sources) and see how long it takes before one shows up on the air at Fox. For example, "Obama lobbies for tax breaks for Al-Jazeera TV under a new fairness doctrine". You know the kind of stuff.

"Obama lobbies for tax breaks for Al-Jazeera TV under a new fairness doctrine".

Many of us wouldn't even bat an eye over that. Now on the other hand if Obama goes "US Service Members to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law with majority of evidence provided from Al-Jazeera news source". Then you probably more then likely get a colorful response from the general population.

 Jihadin wrote:
Many of us wouldn't even bat an eye over that. Now on the other hand if Obama goes "US Service Members to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law with majority of evidence provided from Al-Jazeera news source". Then you probably more then likely get a colorful response from the general population.

Well, that's more of a sad comment on the level of military worship and terror of anything "Islamic" in the US than a statement about news sources. Evidence is evidence and should be considered on its own merits no matter where it came from originally, and if Al-Jazeera provides credible evidence then it should be used.

Well, that's more of a sad comment on the level of military worship and terror of anything "Islamic" in the US than a statement about news sources

I've been to more Islamic countries, dealt with my Islamic counter-parts in different countries, dealt with indigs who grew up knowing nothing but Islam, engaged in combat with them, provided humanitarian aid to them, trained with them, throw in a couple fire fights alongside them, shared meals with them, trusted quite a few of them to an extent, and brought quite a bit of coffee for them from Green Bean. Granted they were mostly military, contractors, Headsman, local Imams, drivers hauling non tactical cargo, farmers, LEO's to name a few. Mainly on a professional level. They have a tendency to skewer the video's, take off on me to get the real story (we're their escort), have a tendency to say we're murdering insurgents, press us on our view points on either OEF/OIF, and pretty much have a perception on being witnesses on executions that are filmed. I almost put you in my Cadbren column there Peregrine but I known you longer.

Evidence is evidence and should be considered on its own merits no matter where it came from originally, and if Al-Jazeera provides credible evidence then it should be used.

I agree if evidence is evidence not tainted. This is a video we all now so well from here and this is their reporting of it.

Just a question though, but why should people of middle eastern descent be looking at the US more favorably especially the military?

We bring the freedom, peace, and democracy!

I would love to answer that question Cheesecat but there can be any number of reasons. They love the US being freedom and opportunities they have here compare to what they have from their home country being the primary one. You have to keep in mind though the Middle Easterners main exposure with the US in their country is from the US Military. Iraq and Afghanistan mainly. Kuwait due to it being a main logistical hub for the US in the Middle East. Jordan with our troops there to ensure Syria civil war doesn't spread. Qatar also another logistical hub for us to. Bahrain naval base. Red Star exercises with Egypt currently none at now.

Its something that's literally pounded into one's head on a first deployment or a PCS move to an over seas location. "You represent the US Military and government when you are out and about".

 Peregrine wrote:
Well, that's more of a sad comment on the level of military worship and terror of anything "Islamic" in the US than a statement about news sources. Evidence is evidence and should be considered on its own merits no matter where it came from originally, and if Al-Jazeera provides credible evidence then it should be used.

What's funny is that I was also going to point to the Qatari al-Jazeera coverage of the "collateral murder" gak to illustrate the flaw in that logic, but Jihadin did it for me.

al-Jazeera's about as fair and balanced as RT.

 Jihadin wrote:

I agree if evidence is evidence not tainted. This is a video we all now so well from here and this is their reporting of it.

This is missing the beginning of the interview with Assange where what they are actually asking him is why he chose to title the video 'Collateral Murder'.

I'll admit that the thing that irritates me about this video is two fold. One, it directly contradicts the AARs that were released. The second relates to what you said earlier about representing the uniform. This guy sounds like he is keyed up and absolutely itching to pull the trigger. That's not good in someone who's assessing threats, because they're going to see one where there is none. The first strike is excusable (there are armed men, it's in proximity, ok, reasonable assumption by the pilots) The second strike bugs me because they can see that they're unarmed, and at no point I can see make any move to collect weapons, and ground troops are nearly on top these guys at this point, so escape is unlikely at best.

But, as they say, hindsight is 20/20.

o.O

Reading my CNN feed that the SENATE rejected the Democrat's Plan to extend the debt ceiling through next year.

Trying to find details... that's kinda odd.

The Pres also just rejected the Houses plan to extend the ceiling.

Can we say clusterfeth?

The Senate Republicans are working on their own plan I think. If I were Obama I wouldn't agree to anything from the house until I see what their competition has to offer.

That was a procedural move to bring a blank check "clean" $1T debt hike that was denied by the Senate.

 whembly wrote:
That was a procedural move to bring a blank check "clean" $1T debt hike that was denied by the Senate.

So when would it have opened the Government back up?

My understanding is that the Senate Republicans are tired of the House games and that they want a bill that addressed the Debt Ceiling and the Shutdown and that both parties there want a bill that doesn't kick the risk of default to the shopping season in November. To that effect there is a bipartisan group of Senators working on a compromise bill that moves the debt ceiling to a different time, addresses concerns that both parties have, and also addresses the shutdown.

That is what Obama is waiting for and most likely the reason the hike was rejected.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That was a procedural move to bring a blank check "clean" $1T debt hike that was denied by the Senate.

So when would it have opened the Government back up?

My understanding is that the Senate Republicans are tired of the House games and that they want a bill that addressed the Debt Ceiling and the Shutdown and that both parties there want a bill that doesn't kick the risk of default to the shopping season in November. To that effect there is a bipartisan group of Senators working on a compromise bill that moves the debt ceiling to a different time, addresses concerns that both parties have, and also addresses the shutdown.

That is what Obama is waiting for and most likely the reason the hike was rejected.

Yeah... that's true.

But the house GOP is pissed. Even Paul Ryan... and he's usually unflappable. o.O

We'll see how this goes.

Looks like the Obama meeting fell apart on the republicans refusing to pass a budget before negotiations on the ACA. Obama refuses to negotiate as long as the GoP refused to allow the government to open.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/12/politics/shutdown-showdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Both sides just need to come up with a budget and go right down the middle going with middle numbers with the difference numbers...well...whatever....isn't there anything in the Constitution on flipping those Jack hats where we can beat some common sense into the heads?

 Jihadin wrote:
Both sides just need to come up with a budget and go right down the middle going with middle numbers with the difference numbers...well...whatever....isn't there anything in the Constitution on flipping those Jack hats where we can beat some common sense into the heads?

That would require giving up their hostage. A compromise like that is reasonable, but not very likely when one side is just using the budget as an excuse to demand concessions on another issue.

 Jihadin wrote:
Both sides just need to come up with a budget and go right down the middle going with middle numbers with the difference numbers...well...whatever....isn't there anything in the Constitution on flipping those Jack hats where we can beat some common sense into the heads?

So...whoever makes the more extreme demands wins what they want then? Just remember that this is still a Republican budget bill already, only funded to sequester levels. The Republicans already won on it, Boehner had agreed to pass it, then Boehner broke the deal when he was threatened with a Tea Party revolt.

Very extreme demands from the Republicans:



Senate responds "Feth you we have more tax payer money to waste!"

So...whoever makes the more extreme demands wins what they want then? Just remember that this is still a Republican budget bill already, only funded to sequester levels. The Republicans already won on it, Boehner had agreed to pass it, then Boehner broke the deal when he was threatened with a Tea Party revolt.

The sequester was not something that the Republicans played on. The sequester happen awhile back due to the failure of the "Super Committee" idea that Obama came up with. Seems to be a case of short term memory loss going on around the world. Also everyone ignoring the idea that the Tea Party reps are pretty much doing what their constituents want but "hey" their EXTREMISTS. So treat them as such and call them as such. Quite a few of you all need to step outside the box and look back in.

As I mention to Peregrine. Having a unlimited borrowing power (financial) is not effective government. I hope you can connect the two points.

 Jihadin wrote:

So...whoever makes the more extreme demands wins what they want then? Just remember that this is still a Republican budget bill already, only funded to sequester levels. The Republicans already won on it, Boehner had agreed to pass it, then Boehner broke the deal when he was threatened with a Tea Party revolt.

The sequester was not something that the Republicans played on. The sequester happen awhile back due to the failure of the "Super Committee" idea that Obama came up with. Seems to be a case of short term memory loss going on around the world. Also everyone ignoring the idea that the Tea Party reps are pretty much doing what their constituents want but "hey" their EXTREMISTS. So treat them as such and call them as such. Quite a few of you all need to step outside the box and look back in.

As I mention to Peregrine. Having a unlimited borrowing power (financial) is not effective government. I hope you can connect the two points.

Firstly, the dollars spend have been allocated by Congress. If congress does not raise the debt ceiling it is saying the Executive must spend so much money money but cannot have money to spend. The result is a break down of constitutional duties.

Secondly, you really think the Sequester was something the President wanted? No, it was a bargain made because the Debt ceiling was being held hostage before. It was learning from that experience, learning that the Republicans could not be satisfied and would simply hold the nation hostage again to get more, that's led to this.

Lastly, yes, they are extremists. The damage that not passing the debt ceiling could do to the economy worldwide is massive, and they are using that as a crux to get demands that they could not get through normal congressional procedure, and they have in fact avoided normal procedure specifically to get to this point (and have signed statements saying that they would!). That is using extreme action to get their policy demands met. That is extremism. They are extremists.

 Jihadin wrote:
As I mention to Peregrine. Having a unlimited borrowing power (financial) is not effective government. I hope you can connect the two points.

And a reasonable government might do something about that (though the current government's ability to do anything is somewhat limited by the problems inherited from the last administration), but through negotiation and compromise at a time when everyone can act calmly and rationally. I have no problems with a plan to increase taxes and decrease spending until we have a balanced budget in the foreseeable future, but the current tea party method is just insanity. You don't hold the economy (along with important scientific research, national park vacations people have committed to spending money on, etc) hostage until your demands are met. That's not a functioning government, it's a bunch of spoiled children who can't stand the fact that having a significant minority (remember, there are enough votes to end the shutdown if the republican leadership will allow a vote) in one house of congress doesn't mean you get to control the entire government.

Not that this is about the debt ceiling, of course. That's just the current hostage being used to demand an end to the Obamacare death panels. If we had a republican president and no health care debate the debt ceiling would just get raised as normal without any hesitation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maddermax wrote:
Firstly, the dollars spend have been allocated by Congress. If congress does not raise the debt ceiling it is saying the Executive must spend so much money money but cannot have money to spend. The result is a break down of constitutional duties.

This. The issue isn't future spending, it's money we've already spent. This is the equivalent of buying a bunch of stuff with your credit card and then declaring that you've reached your debt limit so you don't have to pay the bill anymore.

And a reasonable government might do something about that (though the current government's ability to do anything is somewhat limited by the problems inherited from the last administration), but through negotiation and compromise at a time when everyone can act calmly and rationally. I have no problems with a plan to increase taxes and decrease spending until we have a balanced budget in the foreseeable future, but the current tea party method is just insanity. You don't hold the economy (along with important scientific research, national park vacations people have committed to spending money on, etc) hostage until your demands are met. That's not a functioning government, it's a bunch of spoiled children who can't stand the fact that having a significant minority (remember, there are enough votes to end the shutdown if the republican leadership will allow a vote) in one house of congress doesn't mean you get to control the entire government.

Sheesh we're on both threads.

Outstanding. Last week was ACA being pushed back a year was the target and this week its the debt ceiling and a balance budget which the Republicans want I do believe. Democrats want, I believe, unlimited debt ceiling and full funding. We're going to disregard Nancy Pelosi saying that we cannot cut back on anything more in the budget since apparently by her view point everything has been cut to the bone. As for the Tea Party insanity. Well what's the best way to get a problem out in the open that every body can see. Ted Cruz though screwing the pooch for not having a end game or goal for the end. Boehner going along with it since he is the poor SoBIC that's trying to stay in charge.

edit

and back to painting my Clan Goliath Scorpion, 1st Cateran Cluster (Heart Venom), 7th Cav Company 3rd squad. 4th Squad was done last night

 Jihadin wrote:
Democrats want, I believe, unlimited debt ceiling and full funding.

Getting rid of the debt ceiling is necessary because it has no purpose. Up until the republicans realized they could use it as a negotiating tool hardly anyone even knew it existed, and both parties just quietly raised it every time we got close. Meanwhile it's the equivalent of putting a limit on how much of your credit card bill you're willing to pay, but not putting a limit on how much you're allowed to use that card. It's utterly ineffective for anything other than manufacturing a hostage crisis, so get rid of it and work on meaningful spending limits.

Full funding is necessary because you don't negotiate budget cuts with a hostage crisis. Everything should be funded at current levels for long enough to make a real budget without the constant looming threat of another crisis.

 Frazzled wrote:


On the positive, the catcuses are seriously blooming in Austin.

Haha can't wait to get back to austin. Where is the best place to play in austin now? i usually played with my buddy at JR's down in south where i lived but some times i went to the store on the west side (i think it was called battle forge)

 Peregrine wrote:
And a reasonable government might do something about that (though the current government's ability to do anything is somewhat limited by the problems inherited from the last administration), but through negotiation and compromise at a time when everyone can act calmly and rationally.

So you've looked at the last time the government actually significantly cut overall spending, and are still blaming it on Bush?

Wow. That's...I mean, that's impressive.

 Seaward wrote:
So you've looked at the last time the government actually significantly cut overall spending, and are still blaming it on Bush?

No, I'm saying that the current administration inherited two expensive wars and an economic crisis, and both of those things require a lot of spending. You're just not going to have much realistic hope of fixing the budget in that situation, especially when the republicans consider extending the Bush tax cuts a no-compromise demand. There just isn't enough stuff to cut without getting into the hard political fights where nobody really wants to make any meaningful changes.

Issue is at hand now. Not five to six years ago

 Jihadin wrote:
Issue is at hand now. Not five to six years ago

The issue at hand depends on the issues from years ago. How much military spending we can cut is severely constrained by the need to pay for our war in Afghanistan. How much economic recovery spending we can cut is severely constrained by the really bad situation we're in right now. Any proposal to fix the budget has to respect the fact that the current government has a lot less room to work with than other governments have had in the past, or future governments may eventually have.