Tough Decisions for Obama

[JSE]

A great article that rasies some fair questions about Obama's next few years. Even though it was written from a conservative perspective, it's a good read. I have many of the same questions. He has inherited quite a mess and will be pulled in many personal and political directions so it will be interesting to see how he responds.

(This is not an attack article on Obama)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090122/pl_politico/17769

[emesbee]

An interesting article, those are good questions. The world will be watching closely to see how Obama puts his stamp on things.

One thing I wonder about is how he will handle things when he is put in the position of having to make hard decisions (whatever they may be). He appears to be a man of concensus, which is, I believe, a good thing for the most part. It shows that he is willing to listen (and that is something that the rest of the world is crying out for from the US). Ultimately, however, he will need to make some tough decisions, and it will be interesting to see how he does that.

On the issue of placating the left, well, I don't really have a lot to say about that. One thing that seems apparent to me, is that perceptions of what is considered 'left' and 'right' appear to be quite different in the US compared to here. A lot of what is spoken of as 'left' or 'liberal' in the US seems quite conservative to me. (Here in Australia the right wing side of politics call themselves the Liberal Party, by the way.)

[Mr Peabody]

I don't like his pick for Treasury secretary. It's not just an oversight to not pay taxes. You know what you are doing. So he is qualified, if he is the ONLY person we have that can do the job, toss in the towel now, we are screwed. Obama just didn't look hard enough or not at all. This is who he wanted and that was it. This is like putting a convict in the Chief of police position. I know he is just in office but are people so used to letting him have his way no one is willing to step up and say, no. I mean the guy will be the top dog for the IRS, what's that say to the tax paying public when your top dog is known not to pay taxes. Obama was very cavalier about this in an interview and said he couldn't believe it's an issue. Well either there's more to this I need to know or Mr. Obama and I have a big difference of opinion what is important.

[bobsticks]

It is a good, if rather "on the nose", article. The challenges will be many.


Politically savvy liberal activists are an important reason Obama beat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic nominating contest, and a big reason he blew through all fund-raising records. It will be hard for Obama to govern without their enthusiasm, onthe other hand, it will be tough to reinvent politics if Obama is forced to routinely throw bouquets to the various factions of the Democratic Party.

Recently another thread blew up with some disagreements involving the nature and expense of the inauguration. One of the points that was missed was the recognition that Obama has to transition from electoral politics to the politics of power. He can't continue to be seen as "everyman"...you know the quaint "Obama on the beach, Obama sippin' a beer" candid shots that we've seen. He now has to be seen as a King in order to motivate the seat of true power, Congress.

That might be a tough sell given the extent to which he performed duing the campaign. There's a lot of hands out.

[trollgirl]

He now has to be seen as a King in order to motivate the seat of true power, Congress.

"King"? Is this not America?? He is a sock puppet, as are nearly all members of the Congress. Neither is the seat of true power - remember what Benjamin Disraeli said.

Laz

[Rich-n-Texas]

This thread, I don't think, is going to go well. :sosp:

[Feanor]

This thread, I don't think, is going to go well. :sosp:

Could work out OK ... I'm not participating.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Me neither. Let's go get a Sleemans. :yesnod:

[JSE]

Me neither. Let's go get a Sleemans. :yesnod:


Had one last night. :yesnod:

[Feanor]

Me neither. Let's go get a Sleemans. :yesnod:

Got one in the 'frig; I'll drink it this evening whilst thinking of you and JSE. :22:

[GMichael]

Got one in the 'frig; I'll drink it this evening whilst thinking of you and JSE. :22:

Rrrr...???:blush2: :yikes: :blush2:

[Rich-n-Texas]

Got one in the 'frig; I'll drink it this evening whilst thinking of you and JSE. :22:
I DON'T HAVE ANY!!! :cryin:

[Ajani]

Are we still questioning Obama? The man has CHANGED the world... a villain in a BATMAN movie got nominated for best supporting actor by the Academy Awards! The world as we know it has clearly changed... time to end the political discussions and have a few beers and celebrate!!!! Joker for best supporting actor!!!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Are we still questioning Obama? The man has CHANGED the world... a villain in a BATMAN movie got nominated for best supporting actor by the Academy Awards! The world as we know it has clearly changed... time to end the political discussions and have a few beers and celebrate!!!! Joker for best supporting actor!!!
I DON'T HAVE ANY!!! :sad:

[Groundbeef]

I DON'T HAVE ANY!!! :sad:

Rich, they are talking about beer, not ladies. Surely you haven't drank all of your Milwaukee's best?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Oh.

Nevermind.

[GMichael]

He's clearly not out of whine.

[Ajani]

Rich, they are talking about beer, not ladies, testicles or a life. Surely you haven't drank all of your Milwaukee's best?

Now now, let's not make fun of Rich... just because he's a little...ummm... special... doesn't make it right for us to tease him...

Warning: Groundbeef's quote may have been 'accidentally' altered.

[JSE]

I DON'T HAVE ANY!!! :sad:


I would send you some more but I'm down to about a 12'er. Gotta conserve! :cryin:

[Rich-n-Texas]

So because I stopped going toe to toe with Feanor I have no balls Ajani?








:ihih:

[Ajani]

So because I stopped going toe to toe with Feanor I have no balls Ajani?








:ihih:

I didn't say anything... I was defending you :out:

:ciappa:

[GMichael]

Blue Meanie.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Blue Meanie.
There is a Blue Meanie who posts here once-in-a-while though. :yesnod:

I didn't say anything... I was defending you...
I'm feeling a little testy these days.

[Rich-n-Texas]

BTW, I sent a PM to SB last week that included a picture of me...

Haven't seen hide nor hair of her since. :sosp:

[GMichael]

I'm sure that it had nothing to do with your pic. It's what's on the inside that counts Rich. She'll be back when she can.
How did you put a pic in a PM anyhow? I couldn't see a way to do that.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'm surprised it worked myself. I have a Photobucket account that allows me to use IMG tags that include the link to the source site.

[GMichael]

I'm surprised it worked myself. I have a Photobucket account that allows me to use IMG tags that include the link to the source site.

Oh yeah. That's how people can post so many pics at a time. I've been meaning to learn how to do that but never seem to make the time.

[Groundbeef]

I'm feeling a little testy these days.

1. We don't care about size Rich, hey it's your nut.

2. Please do that in private in the future. This is a family board. Plus FA wouldn't want to see this filth either.

[JSE]

BTW, I sent a PM to SB last week that included a picture of me...

Haven't seen hide nor hair of her since. :sosp:

You just better hope she never sees this photo or she'll be all mine. :ihih: :idea:

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b220/JSEvans/Web%20Pics/keys.jpg

[Groundbeef]

You just better hope she never sees this photo or she'll be all mine. :ihih: :idea:

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b220/JSEvans/Web%20Pics/keys.jpg

Is that a Pina Colada?

[JSE]

Is that a Pina Colada?

Frozen Margarita.

[Groundbeef]

Frozen Margarita.

That is good.

[nightflier]

So I'm getting the sense that every thread about Obama eventually narrows to a discussion about alcohol or the size of someone's manhood. Seems to me that this would be much more apropos in Bush's first term, after all, he'd probably join in the conversation. Or are ya'll just miffed that Obama's the type of guy who probably wouldn't do that?

[Rich-n-Texas]

There's a method to my madness 'flier. :ihih:

[Rich-n-Texas]

Cartman, if she found out what you do for a living she'd dump you like so much turkey manore(sp?). :rolleyes:

[JSE]

She's not into exotic dancers?

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b220/JSEvans/Web%20Pics/cartwomen.jpg

[JSE]

So I'm getting the sense that every thread about Obama eventually narrows to a discussion about alcohol or the size of someone's manhood. Seems to me that this would be much more apropos in Bush's first term, after all, he'd probably join in the conversation. Or are ya'll just miffed that Obama's the type of guy who probably wouldn't do that?


I started it so I can end it however I want! :prrr:

[bobsticks]

So I'm getting the sense that every thread about Obama eventually narrows to a discussion about alcohol or the size of someone's manhood. Seems to me that this would be much more apropos in Bush's first term, after all, he'd probably join in the conversation. Or are ya'll just miffed that Obama's the type of guy who probably wouldn't do that?

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AIiMa2Fe-ZQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AIiMa2Fe-ZQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>






better?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Welp, looks like this thread's back on track (barely) so I'm outta here!

[JSE]

Welp, looks like this thread's back on track (barely) so I'm outta here!


Give it time.

[nightflier]

So Sticks, what're ya sayin'?

[Auricauricle]

Can I have Rich's portion?

[emesbee]

I was thinking of posting a serious comment, but I'm afraid that might spoil the whole ambience of this thread.

[bobsticks]

So Sticks, what're ya sayin'?

This site is populated by a vast number of individuals whose political ideals run the gambit from far Right to far Left. Within that group a good many, if not most, present educated arguments and strive for a common sense middleground all of which will be based on life experience and perception.

There's been a great deal of conflict 'round these parts recently, mostly between folks that have known each other(in a virtual sense) for several years or more. If the conversation went adrift it seems not so much a boys-will-be-boys thing but the natural giddy reaction derived from the proverbial female belch at a social gathering or a fart from the pulpit. It's awkward.

Most of the conservatives on the board have been forward in their willingness to give the incoming President a chance. And, I can't think of anyone that has categorically stated that the last eight years haven't been politically or socially redoubtable. Peeps recognize the need for a change, the amount of which may be debatable but it's too early on for that debate to be informed.

All that said, there's nothing wrong with a little intellectual and civil dissent. One can mention challenges, one can note tactical errors and one can even question the validity of certain choices in a meaningful and respectful way, which was the direction in which this thread was going before it became clear that sans more data this would turn into yet another ideological polemic.

It seems to me that if there was a discernable avoidance of hostility that it was done in the spirit of comraderie and positivity, albeit infantilistic. Nobody ascribed any of said infantilism to Obama's character. It wasn't a trashing. You, on the otherhand, seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid and anything less than absolute reverance toward BHO is cause for yet another trollish diatribe against the evils of corporatism and successful
individuals. The vid was merely to show that, contrary to your assertion, within the Obama machine there are also individuals who might stretch the boundaries of accepted taste.

At some point in the healing process of a nation you gotta get along to go along, especially in discussions of the hazy particular versus the defined paradigm.

[JSE]

This site is populated by a vast number of individuals whose political ideals run the gambit from far Right to far Left. Within that group a good many, if not most, present educated arguments and strive for a common sense middleground all of which will be based on life experience and perception.

There's been a great deal of conflict 'round these parts recently, mostly between folks that have known each other(in a virtual sense) for several years or more. If the conversation went adrift it seems not so much a boys-will-be-boys thing but the natural giddy reaction derived from the proverbial female belch at a social gathering or a fart from the pulpit. It's awkward.

Most of the conservatives on the board have been forward in their willingness to give the incoming President a chance. And, I can't think of anyone that has categorically stated that the last eight years haven't been politically or socially redoubtable. Peeps recognize the need for a change, the amount of which may be debatable but it's too early on for that debate to be informed.

All that said, there's nothing wrong with a little intellectual and civil dissent. One can mention challenges, one can note tactical errors and one can even question the validity of certain choices in a meaningful and respectful way, which was the direction in which this thread was going before it became clear that sans more data this would turn into yet another ideological polemic.

It seems to me that if there was a discernable avoidance of hostility that it was done in the spirit of comraderie and positivity, albeit infantilistic. Nobody ascribed any of said infantilism to Obama's character. It wasn't a trashing. You, on the otherhand, seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid and anything less than absolute reverance toward BHO is cause for yet another trollish diatribe against the evils of corporatism and successful
individuals. The vid was merely to show that, contrary to your assertion, within the Obama machine there are also individuals who might stretch the boundaries of accepted taste.

At some point in the healing process of a nation you gotta get along to go along, especially in discussions of the hazy particular versus the defined paradigm.

Jou Jus call me "infantilistic"?!?! :shocked: :p

[bobsticks]

Jes mang, jes me did...

...nuttin' but Big Bwoy, rasta-Sticks luve for dem pappy show, Cartman duppy...

Irie, irie, eh?

[JSE]

Jes mang, jes me did...

...nuttin' but Big Bwoy, rasta-Sticks luve for dem pappy show, Cartman duppy...

Irie, irie, eh?

coo, Jus shecken mang! :thumbsup:

[GMichael]

I didn't bring my diaper today, but you can still call me Hughie.

[Feanor]

... Well I lied.


This site is populated by a vast number of individuals whose political ideals run the gambit from far Right to far Left. Within that group a good many, if not most, present educated arguments and strive for a common sense middleground all of which will be based on life experience and perception.
...

It seems to me that if there was a discernable avoidance of hostility that it was done in the spirit of comraderie and positivity, albeit infantilistic. Nobody ascribed any of said infantilism to Obama's character. It wasn't a trashing. You, on the otherhand, seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid and anything less than absolute reverance toward BHO is cause for yet another trollish diatribe against the evils of corporatism and successful individuals. The vid was merely to show that, contrary to your assertion, within the Obama machine there are also individuals who might stretch the boundaries of accepted taste.

At some point in the healing process of a nation you gotta get along to go along, especially in discussions of the hazy particular versus the defined paradigm.
Far Left?? By no means, friends. Nobody here has expressed "far" Left views as the term has a world-wide meaning.

So far skewed to the Right is U.S. politics that it has distorted sensibilities of what is "common sense", "middle ground", "respectful", or "accepted taste". Concepts that challenge American conventionalities, ("defined paradigms"), are exterminated by Right-wing intellectual death squads.

Didn't somebody at CNN recently describe Rush Limbaugh as "currently the most prominent Republican"? I believe the biggest threat to the U.S. isn't Socalist, (much less Communism), but Fascist. (Or a more precise historical parallel, Falangist: look it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange).)

[02audionoob]

... Well I lied.


Far Left?? By no means, friends. Nobody here has expressed "far" Left views as the term has a world-wide meaning.

So far skewed to the Right is U.S. politics that it has distorted sensibilities of what is "common sense", "middle ground", "respectful", or "accepted taste". Concepts that challenge American conventionalities, ("defined paradigms"), are exterminated by Right-wing intellectual death squads.

Didn't somebody at CNN recently describe Rush Limbaugh as "currently the most prominent Republican"? I believe the biggest threat to the U.S. isn't Socalist, (much less Communism), but Fascist. (Or a more precise historical parallel, Falangist: look it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange).)

For someone who doesn't have disdain for Americans, you sure do trash the US a lot.

[Feanor]

For someone who doesn't have disdain for Americans, you sure do trash the US a lot.

Before you seek a cure you must acknowledge your illness. Denial doesn't work.

Or are you a death squad member?

[GMichael]

... Well I lied.


Far Left?? By no means, friends. Nobody here has expressed "far" Left views as the term has a world-wide meaning.

So far skewed to the Right is U.S. politics that it has distorted sensibilities of what is "common sense", "middle ground", "respectful", or "accepted taste". Concepts that challenge American conventionalities, ("defined paradigms"), are exterminated by Right-wing intellectual death squads.

Didn't somebody at CNN recently describe Rush Limbaugh as "currently the most prominent Republican"? I believe the biggest threat to the U.S. isn't Socalist, (much less Communism), but Fascist. (Or a more precise historical parallel, Falangist: look it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange).)

I find that most Americans are skewed to the Left. The media is sure skewed so far to the Left as to have, "distorted sensibilities of what is "common sense". But that's just how I see it. Others may disagree, and I will fight for their right to do so.

By the way, Rush Limbaugh is an idiot IMO.

And we could use a little Socialism to control things like health care and utility costs. A hybrid between Capitalism and Socialism seems like the best bet to me. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everything the liberals of the world have to say. I disagree with points on both sides. What I disagree with most is the separation of parties. It seems like no democrats will agree with anything a Republican has to say and vise versa. Both parties spend way too much time trying to vilify the other. If they were to work together a little, they could actually get something fixed. But I doubt that will happen. It's like there's some kind of unwritten rule that if a Dem were to support a Rep (or Rep to Dem) then he/she would be drummed out of their party. tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.
Less fighting and more cooperation would be a good thing. Our new Cheif seems to be saying the same thing. He's gets my support for that. Hope he can pull it off.

[02audionoob]

Before you seek a cure you must acknowledge your illness. Denial doesn't work.

Or are you a death squad member?
I ordinarily vote with the liberals. Why are you being such a jackass?

[Feanor]

I find that most Americans are skewed to the Left. The media is sure skewed so far to the Left as to have, "distorted sensibilities of what is "common sense". But that's just how I see it. Others may disagree, and I will fight for their right to do so.

By the way, Rush Limbaugh is an idiot IMO.

And we could use a little Socialism to control things like health care and utility costs. A hybrid between Capitalism and Socialism seems like the best bet to me. ...

You're a sensible voice, GM. :eek6:

But believe me, the US isn't skewed to the Left. Most around here will agree that Limbaugh is an idiot yet he has the most popular talk show in the US. What are we to make of it?

[GMichael]

You're a sensible voice, GM. :eek6: But believe me, the US isn't skewed to the Left.

I don't know. I live here. It sure seems skewed to the left to me. But I'm sure that anyone on the Right would think that the grass is greener on the other side. Same can be said for people on the Left. It's not until people can start being more tollerant of other's views that we can get something done.

Hey! What the h.ll have you gotten me into? I don't want to be serious. Where's my beer?:incazzato:

[02audionoob]

Most around here will agree that Limbaugh is an idiot yet he has the most popular talk show in the US. What are we to make of it?

Rasmussen Reports says 62% of American have an unfavorable view of Rush Limbaugh.

[GMichael]

Most around here will agree that Limbaugh is an idiot yet he has the most popular talk show in the US. What are we to make of it?

That people love controversy and shock jocks. Just look at Howard Stern. We (not me) love to hear people say stupid chit so we can jump up and down and call them names. Look how many people read every post that Pix writes. It doesn't mean that we agree with him. Far from it.

[Feanor]

I ordinarily vote with the liberals. Why are you being such a jackass?
I'm not the epitome of tact: too bad about that.

But please understand: what I'm hearing is that I'm not allowed to criticize anything American.

[GMichael]

It's like there's some kind of unwritten rule that if a Dem were to support a Rep (or Rep to Dem) then he/she would be drummed out of their party. tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.


Most of us would love to see Pix tarred and feathered again. Here he is after his last visit with Sir T.

[02audionoob]

what I'm hearing is that I'm not allowed to criticize anything American.
It's not that. It's that your "criticisms" are so far over the top. You lump us all together into one big pile of fascists. You're as one-sided as Rush...maybe worse. You're not actually criticizing and the foible at hand isn't a lack of tack...it's an extremist point of view.

[Ajani]

what I'm hearing is that I'm not allowed to criticize anything American.

You're not.

That's the problem with politics... we all get thrown into categories: Local Versus Foreigner, Liberal Versus Conservative, Black Versus White, etc etc etc...

It happens all over the world... there's always a "good reason" to ignore someone else's opinion... He protests the handling of the war, so he must be unpatriotic... He wants to increase health care benefits so he must be a socialist... and so on...

I wonder if I'll live to see a day when we stop finding reasons to divide and start having real discussions of the issues... When we stop perpetuating the myths that you have to be either a communist freedom oppressor or a self serving evil capitalist... there's so much in this world that can't truly be categorized by one rigid doctrine or the other...

[02audionoob]

You're not.


That's just flatly untrue. Freedom of speech as one of the founding principles of the US is alive and well. It's doing alright in other countries, too. Having someone object to your point of view or the way you express it doesn't mean you're not allowed to say it.

What I see in some of these posts is an extremist's one-sided characterization of an entire nation as fascists. That's not criticism so much as name-calling.

[Feanor]

It's not that. It's that your "criticisms" are so far over the top. You lump us all together into one big pile of fascists. You're as one-sided as Rush...maybe worse. You're not actually criticizing and the foible at hand isn't a lack of tack...it's an extremist point of view.

I can't think of anything I said that implies that Americans are a homogenius blob or that their opinions are all the same. If that is your inference, let me set you straight: I know there is great diversity of opinion in the U.S. and I'm very glad for it. However I did say is that the overall balance in the US leans to the Right versus other countries in general. This is based on my 45 years of observation of American politics.

What is "over the top" depends on your perspective. My criticisms are moderate and friendly compared to generral world opinion at the end of the Bush era. The good news that worldwide most people hope and expect improvement from the new adminstration.

[Ajani]

That's just flatly untrue. Freedom of speech as one of the founding principles of the US is alive and well. It's doing alright in other countries, too. Having someone object to your point of view or the way you express it doesn't mean you're not allowed to say it.

What I see in some of these posts is an extremist's one-sided characterization of an entire nation as fascists. That's not criticism so much as name-calling.

For you it is untrue... I do see what you take issue with in some of Feanor's posts (sometimes his passion for politics overshadows his ability to be subtle and non-insulting)... But there are many many people who really don't regard freedom of speech and alternate opinions... Sometimes patriotic people are manipulated into thinking that divergent opinions are unpatriotic (sadly, I saw a lot of that during the Iraq war)...

And the ultra-sad truth is that Feanor's harshest opinions on America are rather moderate compared to some of the extreme anti-American sentiment I've seen expressed around the world...

My point is that we need to try and listen to each other more...

[JSE]

But believe me, the US isn't skewed to the Left.

It's relative. In regard to rest of the world, we are not to far left. However, within our form of government, we are way left right now.

A socialist country will always be far to our left when looking at it globally.

[02audionoob]

I can't think of anything I said that implies that Americans are a homogenius blob or that their opinions are all the same. If that is your inference, let me set you straight: I know there is great diversity of opinion in the U.S. and I'm very glad for it. However I did say is that the overall balance in the US leans to the Right versus other countries in general. This is based on my 45 years of observation of American politics.



So far skewed to the Right is U.S. politics that it has distorted sensibilities of what is "common sense", "middle ground", "respectful", or "accepted taste". Concepts that challenge American conventionalities, ("defined paradigms"), are exterminated by Right-wing intellectual death squads.

This comment neither says nor implies anything about the "overall balance".

[02audionoob]

For you it is untrue... I do see what you take issue with in some of Feanor's posts (sometimes his passion for politics overshadows his ability to be subtle and non-insulting)...

I don't take exception to Feanor's tone. I take exception to the actual statement. I do find it disappointing that the world's view of Americans is down. I also hope it comes up at least a little with the new administration. But if Feanor's comments represent the world's view of the typical American, especially at what you call a moderate level, then they're wrong....bad wrong.

[Ajani]

I don't take exception to Feanor's tone. I take exception to the actual statement. I do find it disappointing that the world's view of Americans is down. I also hope it comes up at least a little with the new administration.

Just electing Obama has raised America's image quite a bit in the world, as it ends the long held belief that America is too racist to elect a minority (At least we won't have to hear anymore celebrities say that the president doesn't care about black people - Kanye's famous Katrina line). Also it is seen as a rejection of Bush and his cowboy diplomacy, which saw America's respect plummet worldwide... Now the real question is whether Obama can deliver (considering his lack of experience & the sheer number of obstacles, dreams and expectations placed upon him worldwide)


But if Feanor's comments represent the world's view of the typical American, especially at what you call a moderate level, then they're wrong....bad wrong.

Hopefully they are... the problem is that the view of America have gotten worse and worse over time (especially the last 8 years)... And many people fail to realize that many of us (foreigners) watch probably as much American TV as Americans do... so we see how news is reported: "A Brave American soldier twisted his ankle in Iraq, meanwhile 13 Canadian and British soldiers were killed in a car bombing.. more on the Brave American after the commercial break" or my 'favorite' Olympic Games - '96 in Atlanta - America's Games... Since NBC had exclusive coverage of the games, us foreigners in the west had the joy of watching as the only events covered where ones with Americans in them... so popular events like the sprints where ignored to show long distance rowing... even worse, the cameras would follow the American athletes, so they'd follow an American in last place and ignore the winner of the event... That's a case of taking National Pride to a ridiculous level, to the point of being anti-everyone else... Nonsense like that gives the rest of the world a strong impression that you think nothing of them ... Eventually our local stations had to arrange a feed from the BBC so we could actually see the Olympics...

My point is that, the impression the rest of the world gets of America is from watching American TV and having to deal with the effects of American foreign policy... I have no doubt that it is unfair to lump all Americans in one category, just as it is ridiculous to assume that all Jamaicans are one way etc... but America has a lot of work to do in order to repair its world image...

[Luvin Da Blues]

..... But if Feanor's comments represent the world's view of the typical American, especially at what you call a moderate level, then they're wrong....bad wrong.

Spoken like a true patriot. :thumbsup:

[02audionoob]

Spoken like a true patriot. :thumbsup:
Wow...this is a tough room! :smilewinkgrin:

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'm right there with ya 02. :thumbsup:

Fight the good fight!

[Luvin Da Blues]

Wow...this is a tough room! :smilewinkgrin:

Anyone that stands up for their country/ideas (regardless if I agree or not) is OK in my book. :smile5:

[nightflier]

Just electing Obama has raised America's image quite a bit in the world...

Even before the man starts, we are already patting ourselves on the back for this? Would it be too much to suggest, given the level of abuse in the previous administration, that electing Obama was not so much a move to the left as a move to the center, and consequently a return to normalcy and synergy with the rest of the Western world, if not the whole world? Maybe a little humility is in order.

Someone mentioned the war in Iraq so let's consider that as an example. Can this act of aggression even be justified? I'm not talking about the WMDs or the fact that Saddam was a monster, as those reasons will be laughed out of the history books in due time. But if not those, than what was the reason? Frankly, I just don't think that this war can be justified or even legitimized through international law. As such, the war is symbolic of our complete disregard for law, civility, and morality. Did everybody not see what our troops did in Faluja and Abu Graib? Perhaps more importantly, did everybody forget what apologists like Limbaugh and Coulter said about these atrocities? And so we now want to ascribe these acts to a central position? After all, if Obama with his anti-Iraq-war stance and his promise to close prisons and curtail torture is leftist, then the other side must be either rightist or centrist. Well, which is it? Are we not completely out of synch with the rest of the civilized world if we continue to believe that (A) the past administration was anywhere near the center, or that (B) Obama is anywhere near the left? And that's just one example, but we can make a similar case for the economy, the environment, personal freedoms, and the just about every other issue.

For anyone that doubts any of these assertions, I can only conclude that such a person hasn't traveled. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that what we see, read, and hear in the popular media, even what we like to call the left-leaning media such as National Public Radio, is considered conservative in most other countries. I was in Europe last year for an extended stay where I had the opportunity to visit many countries. Trust me when I say this, there was no greater hatred and loathing than for Americans. To put that into perspective, it wasn't too long ago that this kind of sentiment was reserved for Russia & China. And to Feanor's credit, the disenchantment with us Americans wasn't just directed at our leaders, but also at us for letting them become our leaders and remaining our leaders. Yes there were protests here, but did any of us attend them before they fizzled out?

I also traveled to South America before that (before the Chavez/Lula changes) and again, the hatred was deep-seated and persistent. Every Argentinian and Chilean knows full well that our hands are equally bloodied by the massive repressions of the past decades. Likewise every Ecuadorean knows that we are stealing their natural resources to satisfy our own excesses. Whether the criticism is entirely deserved or not, the sentiment is very much there. Maybe we owe it to the rest of the world to not just elect an Obama, but to also change our perspective about who we are, and perhaps to participate in the reparations. There may very well be a day in the future when we no longer are the dominant military threat in the world, and when we will greatly depend on the goodwill we are now willing to show the rest of the world from this point forward.

So for anyone that thinks we are now a leftist country, I suggest you take a good look outside our borders first. You may not like what you see.

[bobsticks]

... Well I lied.

...or read: responded to the intent of the original provocation as was predicted...
which was the direction in which this thread was going before it became clear that sans more data this would turn into yet another ideological polemic.


Far Left?? By no means, friends. Nobody here has expressed "far" Left views as the term has a world-wide meaning.

Well, actually they've been fairly well defined by you.



So far skewed to the Right is U.S. politics that it has distorted sensibilities of what is "common sense", "middle ground", "respectful", or "accepted taste"..

Does it surprise you to read that I agree with this? Sometimes I suspect that folks get so caught up in the passion that they forget to read for content. I agree that U.S. politics has become far skewed, though in my experience it's beento both extremes.



Concepts that challenge American conventionalities, ("defined paradigms"), are exterminated by Right-wing intellectual death squads.

C'mon Bill, enough already with the hyperbole and the straw man fallacies. We're the homeland of "Piss Christ" and have an individual who consistently runs for the California legislature under the auspices of the Zapata Party.We're nothing but a juxtaposition of crazy ideas and practices.

Most of the concepts that fail to gain strong support have been exterminated by the light of history. We've got enough ghettos and trailerparks.We don't need to construct another Nevsky Prospekt for our unwed mothers to drive their astrovans Potemkin through.



I believe the biggest threat to the U.S. isn't Socalist, (much less Communism), but Fascist. (Or a more precise historical parallel, Falangist: look it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange).)

Interesting. I could quibble about the advanced technocratic oligarchy already entrenched within our society but I see some strong similarities, especially within the current military industrial complex, momentary cries for government control over industry and the religious involvement. I envision this as more reactionary to the current downward spiral and imagine the pious folks would hoisted on their own petard in short order.

I don't think we have to worry about socialism overtaking us...we're halfway there.

[Feanor]

...
C'mon Bill, enough already with the hyperbole and the straw man fallacies. We're the homeland of "Piss Christ" and have an individual who consistently runs for the California legislature under the auspices of the Zapata Party.We're nothing but a juxtaposition of crazy ideas and practices.
....
Well, I was wrong if I implied that a wide range of opinions doesn't exist State-side. It's just that it isn't particularly tolerated in some quarters, especially when encouraged by foreigners.


....
I don't think we have to worry about socialism overtaking us...we're halfway there.
Granted, with the new administration the threat of moderate centrism is very real.

[Ajani]

Anyone that stands up for their country/ideas (regardless if I agree or not) is OK in my book. :smile5:


The problem is that people are often confused into thinking that just being quick to defend your country in an argument or fighting for your country in a war is patriotic... Patriotism is not just about standing up for your country... It's about being willing to stand up for the ideals upon which your country stands, even if that means doing the unpopular thing...

If you believe the war your leader wants to engage in is against the ideals upon which your country was founded, then you protest that war.... If you truly agree with your leaders, then you fight that war... but you don't fight a war that you don't believe in, just because you are told that fighting it is patriotic... Were the soldiers who obeyed the orders of madmen and mass murderers patriotic? We don't just accept that the Nazi soldiers were being patriotic by fighting for their country and following orders.... Truly patriotic Germans protested and went to their deaths protesting that immoral war...

Arguing with any foreigner who says something 'bad' about America is not patriotic... Being willing to listen and determine whether at least some part of that foreigner's words are valid, and having the balls to try and make that change is patriotic... If the foreigner is just spouting lies, then it is patriotic to defend your country... Patriotism does not always mean fighting, sometimes it means listening and reflecting and trying to implement change....

[02audionoob]

The outright arrogance of you people absolutely floors me. You have the authority to define the word patriot?

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=patriot

[Feanor]

... Patriotism does not always mean fighting, sometimes it means listening and reflecting and trying to implement change....

Introspection isn't enough. You ought to listen you friends' insights; sometimes even your enemies'.

[bobsticks]

Well, I was wrong if I implied that a wide range of opinions doesn't exist State-side. It's just that it isn't particularly tolerated in some quarters, especially when encouraged by foreigners.

Well, we all gotta be careful not to rub another man's rhubarb.



Granted, with the new administration the threat of moderate centrism is very real...

...from the political bleacher seats in Papua Barat or Venezuela, maybe...but, lol, touché <lifts glass>

[Ajani]

The outright arrogance of you people absolutely floors me. You have the authority to define the word patriot?

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=patriot

And? Was there something in my definition that either contradicted your link or that you actually disagreed with? Or are you just offended that I would attempt a detailed discussion of what patriotism is?

[Mr Peabody]

It looks like these slimeballs in Georgia who knowingly sold tainted peanut butter will get away with it. People died, they knew it was tainted when they sold it yet seems nothing can be done. You'd think the families of the deceased might bring suit or the companies who had to remove products from shelves but our laws should be such to hold them accountable. In one of these political threads we got into the Chinese debate and I spoke of the poison milk that was sold, well those behind that got death and life in prison. Maybe the Chinese have the answer after all.

[Auricauricle]

...or at least a peanut butter and jelly sammich...and a blindfold.

[Rich-n-Texas]

So how come nobody has brought up the fact that three of Obama's appointees/nominees are tax cheats?

[Auricauricle]

Li'l early for pickin' a fight, ain't it?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Who me? Li'l ol' me? :confused5:

[Auricauricle]

Oh, yeah, boy. You know who ahm talkin' to....

[Rich-n-Texas]

And the appointed one is the Treasury Secretary!

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

:rolleyes:

[Auricauricle]

The irony is just too much to bear sometimes....

[Rich-n-Texas]

Buncha chickensh!ts! :lol:

[Ajani]

So how come nobody has brought up the fact that three of Obama's appointees/nominees are tax cheats?

That reminds of a joke I heard about that issue:

No idea who said it though, but basically A Republican said: "No wonder the Democrats have no problem raising taxes, since they don't pay them anyway"...

Yeah it is embarrassing and frankly rather strange that so many appointees have tax issues... but since I haven't researched if this was an issue with previous administrations also, I can't say whether it is a sign of poor candidate screening and selection etc...

[Auricauricle]

Frankly, I been so deep in the semester and work that I ain't got much time to check out the sit, Richie. Gimmeabreak!

[bobsticks]

Tut-tut, lads...no harsh words about the saviour lest there be drama.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Now that Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination for health secretary because of his failure to pay taxes, and Nancy Killefer, who was appointed chief performance officer and deputy OMB director, has also withdrawn because of non-payment of taxes, it is time for Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner to do exactly the same.

Geithner never answered the question put to him by senators Kyl and Bunning: Would he have paid his back taxes if he were not nominated to run the Treasury? His issue has never been resolved. He will never have the full trust of the country.

Consider this: Daschle said today that he would not have been able to lead a reform of the nation’s health-care system “with the full faith of Congress and the American people.” Well, Geithner will not be able to lead a reform of the nation’s financial system either. Mr. Geithner will not have the full faith of the American people or Congress, where 31 no votes were cast against his nomination — by far the largest nay vote for a post-WWII Treasury secretary.

Ms. Killefer was appointed chief performance officer to monitor the incredible spending increases now under consideration for the so-called stimulus package. Similarly, Geithner is the chief performance officer of the U.S. economy. What does it say about him, that he neglected to pay taxes? What does it say to ordinary Americans that Geithner was in effect a tax cheat right up to the point he was appointed to one of the highest offices in the land? Will he ever be trusted? It is doubtful.

For all of Mr. Geithner’s apparent skills and knowledge and other professional qualifications, he still has a tremendous ethical problem. Pres. Obama has made much of the need for a new era of responsibility and ethics. Obama is right. But Mr. Geithner is wrong. He should follow Daschle and Killefer by submitting his resignation.

This is a matter of personal character and accountability. It is a matter of honesty. Too many of our leaders suffer big deficits in these areas.

Pres. Obama should wipe the slate clean with a Geithner resignation. No one is irreplaceable. There are no supermen. In fact, somewhat ironically, new commerce secretary Judd Gregg would make an excellent Treasury secretary.

It is time for Mr. Geithner to step down.
"Wellll... we're waiting"

[Rich-n-Texas]

Frankly, I been so deep in the semester and work that I ain't got much time to check out the sit, Richie. Gimmeabreak!
Remember, excuses are like a$$holes, right?

[GMichael]

What about your resolution?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Quiting smoking was my annual New Years resolution for about 6 years before I finally quit on "The Great American Smokeout" about 12 years ago. Just following a previous tradition.

Besides, it's not like I'm off-topic right?

[GMichael]

Nice justification skills there my friend. Nice..

[02audionoob]

It really is a shame the best our new president can come up with are tax cheats. Regardless of our political differences, it seems like we all can agree our government officials should pay their taxes. There should be zero leniency on that issue.

[Rich-n-Texas]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Ya know?

[Auricauricle]

At least he owned up to it....

[nightflier]

Well, it looks like Geithner's going to stay. Two out of the three cheats gone, that's still better. So there, let's move on.

[02audionoob]

Well, it looks like Geithner's going to stay. Two out of the three cheats gone, that's still better. So there, let's move on.

Just so I'm clear...are you in charge of deciding when we move on?

[bobsticks]

Well, it looks like Geithner's going to stay. Two out of the three cheats gone, that's still better. So there, let's move on.

It's only better if they're replaced with individuals of greater ethical standing. Recent history leaves little room for optimism.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Recent history leaves little room for optimism.
Well, since it's a given Obama will only be tapping other democrats, I'd have to agree sticks.

[nightflier]

Well, since it's a given Obama will only be tapping other democrats....

...that's not a given either.

[bobsticks]

Is Jim Ortenzio available for the position?

[nightflier]

Is Jim Ortenzio available for the position?

A tax-evader and a republican? Cute. In any case I doubt Obama will be appointing any tax-evaders from here on out. He doesn't strike me as the type to wants to say "I screwed up" on national TV twice - especially since Fox & Limbaugh have been having a field day with it.

That said, he could very well pick a stand-up Republican for the job, trouble is, they're pretty hard to come by.

Threw you a bone, Tex.

[Rich-n-Texas]

That's 'cause they're all in j.....

Whoa! What am I sayin' :yikes:

[Rich-n-Texas]

Slightly OT... Has anyone seen the Youtube born Obama impersonator? He's hilarious! He adds just the right amount of exageration to be side-splitting funny. He apparently is a rapper by trade (so to speak I guess) so in some of his skits he's impersonating Barack doing a rap song. Funny as all get out! :lol:

[Mr Peabody]

I can't believe out of all of you yappin it up here that no one recognized that I brought this up way back when Geithner was first nominated! No one pays any attention to me around here, you have to be some damn beacon of light or some shtuff. Anyway, if anyone cares, I agree with Rich and Geithner should have NEVER been put in that office. Goes to show as on this board, Washington has a double standard. One set of rules for the masses and another for the BS politicians. What I want to know is how they got away without paying taxes. It ain't like no one knows where they work. Congress sets the laws the IRS has to play by, these rats get away with it while your grandma's SSA could be garnished for some $500.00 tax bill a few years old she done forgot about where she flubbed up, maybe she took money out of an IRA and didn't have tax withheld and couldn't pay when filing. Don't let anyone fool you, it's the little guy, the working man who don't have a choice about having the tax withheld that's footing the damn bill for this country. Corporations run this country and between the loop holes and give aways don't pay jack for tax. Same with the rich, not the Rich, the rich. It's like we have no values, ethics or honor any more. It's like no one cares and everyone is walking around in a daze, "don't rock my boat man, I'm having a moment". Well, Bush, overdosed on power sent everyone a tidal wave and we elected Obama. If he don't come through and the first days haven't impressed me much, I guess we are......... sunk.

So would you rather have your president doing Monica, OR YOU!!? I don't know what that's about but it looks good so it stays. Hell, no one will read it any way.

[bobsticks]

Whoa there, Mr. P-Nelly...I think we all got caught up in the argument between the foreigners and Nightflier versus the people that actually like America. Ain't nobody tryin' to steal your thunder. You were absolutely right, of course.

And, I think that everyone recognised it but it's a matter of having such perpetually lowered expectations that no one ever expected anything to be done about it. I still say it matters not one whit if the subsequent nominations are as venal as the former.

The only thing that you and I differ on is that I think everyone pays too much in taxes...that and I'd rather have my President doing someone hotter than Monica. He is the Prez, after all. You gotta respect the office.

[02audionoob]

JFK was doing someone hotter than Monica. Ah...the good old days.

[bobsticks]

That was Presidential...


...indeed.

[Mr Peabody]

There's no difference, heaven forbid, I hope it didn't sound like I thought we didn't pay enough taxes. Or, are you trying to tell me you're rich. That's rich, not Rich. Of course, you could be Rich too, we'll have to look into that.

[bobsticks]

There's no difference, heaven forbid, I hope it didn't sound like I thought we didn't pay enough taxes. Or, are you trying to tell me you're rich. That's rich, not Rich. Of course, you could be Rich too, we'll have to look into that.

Lol.

My friend, I am neither rich nor am I Rich nor do I think you are tax-and-spend.

Too many people look at it as though whatever taxes are levied are necessarily righteous. My problem is that I see the budgets and the reports (as I'm sure you have access, as well). The amount of waste both within our borders and outside is shameful.
Our ideas are old and outdated and no politicians are addressing substanitive issues.

[Rich-n-Texas]

There's no difference, heaven forbid, I hope it didn't sound like I thought we didn't pay enough taxes. Or, are you trying to tell me you're rich. That's rich, not Rich. Of course, you could be Rich too, we'll have to look into that.


My friend, I am neither rich nor am I Rich nor do I think you are tax-and-spend
Got my profit sharing check today.

:ihih:

[GMichael]

I can't believe out of all of you yappin it up here that no one recognized that I brought this up way back when Geithner was first nominated! No one pays any attention to me around here, you have to be some damn beacon of light or some shtuff. Anyway, if anyone cares, I agree with Rich and Geithner should have NEVER been put in that office. Goes to show as on this board, Washington has a double standard. One set of rules for the masses and another for the BS politicians. What I want to know is how they got away without paying taxes. It ain't like no one knows where they work. Congress sets the laws the IRS has to play by, these rats get away with it while your grandma's SSA could be garnished for some $500.00 tax bill a few years old she done forgot about where she flubbed up, maybe she took money out of an IRA and didn't have tax withheld and couldn't pay when filing. Don't let anyone fool you, it's the little guy, the working man who don't have a choice about having the tax withheld that's footing the damn bill for this country. Corporations run this country and between the loop holes and give aways don't pay jack for tax. Same with the rich, not the Rich, the rich. It's like we have no values, ethics or honor any more. It's like no one cares and everyone is walking around in a daze, "don't rock my boat man, I'm having a moment". Well, Bush, overdosed on power sent everyone a tidal wave and we elected Obama. If he don't come through and the first days haven't impressed me much, I guess we are......... sunk.

So would you rather have your president doing Monica, OR YOU!!? I don't know what that's about but it looks good so it stays. Hell, no one will read it any way.

I'm sorry Mr P. Did you say something?

Joke! It's just a joke!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Nevertheless...

Mr. P, trust me when I say I share your anger towards the habitual greed our elected officials seem to be able to enjoy in this country. The old saying, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" was written with the politician in mind. And government supported corporate greed makes me equally sick. We're all apathetic little rats in the eyes of most politicians I'm sure.

Moreover...

Had Obama not given the nod to this joker Geithner he'd STILL be cheating on his taxes. "It's only a crime if you get caught", right Mr. Treasury Secretary?

[Auricauricle]

I think it would be prudent, before any more mud is slung, for us all to take stock of the notion that while Bush and his merry men caroused through the night we, the People, chose to shut the door quietly and sleep it off. I do not recall one outburst of protest, not one whit of criticism, not one shred of censure. Instead of standing together in one voice and telling Washington we were fed up, we closed our eyes and pretended that the whole unpleasant business would go away. Well, we're still at war, the Fed is still squandering OUR money, and...and...

The election of Obama was a start; a clear and unequivocal statement that we Americans know that despite our failures, despite our excesses and depravity, can do much, MUCH better. I cannot predict that Obama will amount, as a statesman or a president or as a MAN, much better than Georgie Porgie. But he is symbolic in my mind of Hope that maybe, MAYBE, we will open the window at last and tell our neighbors to GET WITH THE PROGRAM!

[Rich-n-Texas]

I think it would be prudent, before any more mud is slung, for us all to take stock of the notion that while Bush and his merry men caroused through the night we, the People, chose to shut the door quietly and sleep it off. I do not recall one outburst of protest, not one whit of criticism, not one shred of censure. Instead of standing together in one voice and telling Washington we were fed up, we closed our eyes and pretended that the whole unpleasant business would go away. Well, we're still at war, the Fed is still squandering OUR money, and...and...
Exactly why I say apathetic. I'm as much to blame (even though I do vote) because I could easliy be dogging my elected officials via e-mail and letters, and making a PITA of myself, just like I do here. :idea:


The election of Obama was a start; a clear and unequivocal statement that we Americans know that despite our failures, despite our excesses and depravity, can do much, MUCH better. I cannot predict that Obama will amount, as a statesman or a president or as a MAN, much better than Georgie Porgie. But he is symbolic in my mind of Hope that maybe, MAYBE, we will open the window at last and tell our neighbors to GET WITH THE PROGRAM!
(Agrees and raises the American flag) :thumbsup:

[Ajani]

Speaking of tough decisions for Obama:

Is he right in wanting to cap the salaries for executives of the bailed out banks?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/gop-opposes-pay-limits-on_n_164544.html

The way I see it is simply that if you are willing to get down on your knees and beg for bailout, like a child asking daddy for a new toy, then you need to accept the fact that you've kissed your independence goodbye...

In tough times I could go beg my mom for money, but I know that there will be a cost to it... she'll get involved in my finances and want to keep track of my spending... Nothing is free... If you believe the free market will solve all your problems, then don't beg the government for favors..

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents...

[Auricauricle]

Well, many of these children never reached puberty, if you asked me. So there was no independence to lose, anyway. No favors; just bidness as usual for the powers that be and the elite. In the meantime, mebbe people who scrap and scrabble for a living are not "begging for a bailout", they're demanding what is rightfully theirs.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Speaking of tough decisions for Obama:

Is he right in wanting to cap the salaries for executives of the bailed out banks?
NO! They should all be taken out behind the barn and shot! Done! Then set some serious guidelines for the replacement.

In tough times I could go beg my mom for money, but I know that there will be a cost to it... she'll get involved in my finances and want to keep track of my spending... Nothing is free... If you believe the free market will solve all your problems, then don't beg the government for favors..

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents...
So you ARE going to buy the Parasound and Monitor Audio afterall! :thumbsup:

[Rich-n-Texas]

So how come nobody has brought up the fact that three of Obama's appointees/nominees are tax cheats?
So, one full day since I made this remark, and still nothing from our resident America hater. Typical. :lol:

[Ajani]

NO! They should all be taken out behind the barn and shot! Done! Then set some serious guidelines for the replacement.

Agreed!


So you ARE going to buy the Parasound and Monitor Audio afterall! :thumbsup:

Nope.. mommy said no... I'll have to save up for new toys on my own...

[Ajani]

mebbe people who scrap and scrabble for a living are not "begging for a bailout", they're demanding what is rightfully theirs.

I was really thinking of the greedy executives, and not the workers who are being ripped off and actually need some help from the government... I have no issue with people who are really suffering, asking for help... but it hurts me to think that greedy execs have the audacity to ask for help, when they are the major cause of the problem... then worse, they want to complain about government regulations on the handout!!!

[Sugar Beats]

Well, we're still at war, the Fed is still squandering OUR money, and...and...

The election of Obama was a start; a clear and unequivocal statement that we Americans know that despite our failures, despite our excesses and depravity, can do much, MUCH better. But he is symbolic in my mind of Hope that maybe, MAYBE, we will open the window at last and tell our neighbors to GET WITH THE PROGRAM!


Currently, there are four major transformations that are shaping political, economic & world events (as I see it.)
These transformations have profound implications for American business leaders and owners, our culture and our way of life!

1. The war in Iraq
2. The Emmergence of China
3. Shifting Demographics in Western Cizilization
4. The Restructuring of American Buisness

Now, HOW? I ask you is one man going to fix all this? He can't. But maybe, just maybe if we all stay educated and informed on what the heck is going on not just in our country, but in the world, we can all work to see improvements made.

And that's all I'm going say about it, I dislike "political" discussions. There's just soooo much that comes into play!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Currently, there are four major transformations that are shaping political, economic & world events (as I see it.)
These transformations have profound implications for American business leaders and owners, our culture and our way of life!

1. The war in Iraq
2. The Emmergence of China
3. Shifting Demographics in Western Cizilization
4. The Restructering of American Buisness

Now, HOW? I ask you is one man going to fix all this? He can't. But maybe, just maybe if we all stay educated and informed on what the heck is going on not just in our country, but in the world, we can all work to see improvements made.

And that's all I'm going say about it, I dislike "political" discussions. There's just soooo much that comes into play!
Yeah, what she said! X10! :ihih:

[Auricauricle]

(Smack!) Shameless kissa...! Don't blame ya, though! Informed, sure....Still:

"Get up, stand up,
Stand up for your rights!"

[GMichael]

PW'd......

[Auricauricle]

Quite.

[nightflier]

So Obama capped executive perks after it came out that over 1/2 of the $12B bailout money for BofA went to bonuses and dividend payments? Well at least he did something. It's not like Shrub did anything when it came out that AIG was spending bailout money frivolously. I think that's a good sign. If anything, Obama looks like he will do a whole lot more than Shrub did in his first hundred days (when he wasn't reading comic books and playing golf).

And I'm not saying Geithner is a saint, but it doesn't look like he's stepping down, so let's move on an see what he & Obama do next. Mr.P asked why no one noticed the tax evasion in the first place, but I have to believe that the man's taxes are pretty complex to begin with. Maybe it wasn't his fault at all, but the fault of someone who worked for him, i.e. the tax guy. Again, not saying the man's a saint, but as public citizens we really can't know the whole story, although maybe we should.

Sticks, that was a low blow about me not liking this country. I am an American just like most everyone else here. I've just had the opportunity to travel a lot, so my perspective is a little more international. And I don't think that's a bad thing - you can't always see the forest for the trees when you're standing in the middle of it.

[bobsticks]

Speaking of tough decisions for Obama:

Is he right in wanting to cap the salaries for executives of the bailed out banks?

Like many on this forum I work within corporate systems and while that might lead some to believe that I would support or empathize with these execs, I would state unequivocatingly: "Hell yeah, he's right to demand that these douchebags relinquish any claim to a bonus!".

I have a very rigid and formulaic bonus plan that is based on the welfare of the company as a whole, growth within the market, and individual and team performance. See how I did that? I dropped that word "performance" in there. If operated with the crass insensitivity to the needs of my company and my people I'd be fired immediately. You don't get to run your company into the ground and walk away better for it.

Everyone's trying to be civil or theoretical about this...but it's "Go Time", brothers. **** the muther****ers.

I applaud Obama for taking this step, even if partially after the fact...solid brass balls in the world of power politics. good on him and good for the working men and women of the country. And, I think it is safe to say that many of his predecessors would not have made the same call. Now he just needs to get the rest of the team on board...

[bobsticks]

Sticks, that was a low blow about me not liking this country. I am an American just like most everyone else here.

It was a low blow. I apologize to the foreigners, who've really been quite reasonable for the most part.

[JSE]

And I'm not saying Geithner is a saint, but it doesn't look like he's stepping down, so let's move on an see what he & Obama do next. Mr.P asked why no one noticed the tax evasion in the first place, but I have to believe that the man's taxes are pretty complex to begin with. Maybe it wasn't his fault at all, but the fault of someone who worked for him, i.e. the tax guy. Again, not saying the man's a saint, but as public citizens we really can't know the whole story, although maybe we should.


Yeah let's give him a pass. What's the worse he could do? The lying tax cheat is just Secretary of the Treasury. Besides, (in my best little crybaby voice) his little puttie taxes were complicated. Poor little baaaaby. :cryin:

So where exactly is your line between "let's give him a pass" and "child of satan"? :frown2:

[Rich-n-Texas]

It was a low blow. I apologize to the foreigners, who've really been quite reasonable for the most part.
:yikes:

Oh geez, that's certainly gonna leave a mark!

[Mr Peabody]

I think Bobsticks struck the nail. Sure we elected Obama, and he may be sincere when he wants to bring change but it's like playing a board or card game, there's only so much change you can do while playing with the same rules. For instance, if we weren't paying billions of dollars to other countries to be our friend, what we could do with that inside our own borders. The flipping republicans don't want to vote for Obama's stimulus package but they let their own sail right on through with no accountability what so ever. I really feel as if them and Bush screwed the public to give their buds a parting gift. When you and I reach a tight budget we don't say, let's go on vacation to a resort. If these corporations had the money to take 12 day paid vacations, buy jets etc. they weren't hurting and didn't need our tax money. What Bush created was corporate welfare. I don't think the first bail out was as critical as they said either. Hello, these are the guys that sold you WMD. A guy on the Today Show made some good since when he said, sure we need banks but why couldn't we let them go out of business. It's like why not let Circuit City and Best Buy go out of business, good riddence. With them gone maybe Mom & Pop can come back, maybe people would come to understand what customer service is again. Same with banking, it's gotten some better but they charge you to keep your money that helps them make money. The republicans watered down the stimulus by taking out "buy American". Oh, it might start a trade war. Well since they put us out of business doing anything for ourselves I guess that would be bad. What do we make here anymore. One thing we do is grow food, do they grow corn and wheat in the desert, how many cows over there? We need a trade war and we need DC to get their heads out of their butt. I don't even really think it's that, they need to get the foreign money out of their pocket. It's funny how Hollywood will impose HDMI and HDCP on the American public yet let China get away with massive piracy. I don't know if it's possible but the rule book needs to be burned and a new one written. Or, better yet, play without one, then we can add adaptibility.

[Feanor]

....
And I'm not saying Geithner is a saint, but it doesn't look like he's stepping down, so let's move on an see what he & Obama do next. Mr.P asked why no one noticed the tax evasion in the first place, but I have to believe that the man's taxes are pretty complex to begin with. Maybe it wasn't his fault at all, but the fault of someone who worked for him, i.e. the tax guy. Again, not saying the man's a saint, but as public citizens we really can't know the whole story, although maybe we should.
....

I suspect that a majority of American high-rollers, following the advise of their tax advisors, will go as far as possible to avoid taxes. Problem is there is a really fine line between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Some stray across that line without even realizing it.

An observation I must make is that question of morality in personal life plays a larger role in US politicans that in most other countries. Is it a politicians's private life that matters or his public performance?

If a politician takes bribes or otherwise exploits his position to his own advantage contrary to the public interest, well, that must be totally condemned. However private morality isn't a reliable surrogate for trust in public matters. If a politician has a mistress, or gets blow jobs under the desk or in public washrooms, that's between him and his wife; if he has a tax dispute, that's between him and the IRS. A prominent minority of Americans, (not all let me hasten to say), are excessively Puritanical.

[Mr Peabody]

I can't agree with you on that Feanor. If some one is dishonest in private life they will be in public, at least to the extent that they think they won't get caught. The sex matters I care less about but cheating, I do. Of course, on the other hand, human nature doesn't seem to have a problem with double standards. Some of the biggest slackers in the work place I have seen become managers and be some of the biggest A-holes to ever get behind the desk. I still don't understand your position. What you are saying is that you'd trust a known burgular to watch your house and walk the dog while you took a two week cruise. You'd trust a car jacker to park your car. Good luck. The lack of integrity is what has our economy in the toilet now. I'm surprised you think like you do from a person of your generation. If a man don't have his "word", then he don't have anything. I consider myself a trusting person, I trust anyone I meet until they give me a reason not to. If that reason happens I will not associate with that person any more. What is wrong with humanity when we don't strive to have and respect those that do, honor, honesty and integrity? What, do you hold to "honor amongst thieves"? Good luck again. I personally would not have a problem with abiding by the laws of the Middle East where if you steal, you lose your hand. If you haven't noticed I have no tolerance for dishonesty what so ever.

I'll let you in on the real under lying problem I have with Geithner. Federal employees are held to a harsher standard when it comes to filing and paying taxes. For the common employee it can be out the door, don't pass GO. To allow the #1 guy to get away with tax violation is a slap in the face to all government employees, especially those under the Dept. of Treasury. When it comes to tax collection Federal employees, or should I say lower level federal employees, are gone after with much more aggressive procedures...

[02audionoob]

If a politician takes bribes or otherwise exploits his position to his own advantage contrary to the public interest, well, that must be totally condemned. However private morality isn't a reliable surrogate for trust in public matters. If a politician has a mistress, or gets blow jobs under the desk or in public washrooms, that's between him and his wife; if he has a tax dispute, that's between him and the IRS. A prominent minority of Americans, (not all let me hasten to say), are excessively Puritanical.

I don't know how tongue-in-cheek the intent in those comments might be, but there's at least a little bit of pragmatic merit to it.

[Ajani]

An observation I must make is that question of morality in personal life plays a larger role in US politicans that in most other countries. Is it a politicians's private life that matters or his public performance?

If a politician takes bribes or otherwise exploits his position to his own advantage contrary to the public interest, well, that must be totally condemned. However private morality isn't a reliable surrogate for trust in public matters. If a politician has a mistress, or gets blow jobs under the desk or in public washrooms, that's between him and his wife; if he has a tax dispute, that's between him and the IRS. A prominent minority of Americans, (not all let me hasten to say), are excessively Puritanical.

A lot of people around the world were truly shocked at how big an issue was made of the President having an affair...

The problem with saying that he lied about it is that everyone lies about having an affair... it wouldn't be cheating if you were honest about it in the 1st place... So the issue then becomes that someone shouldn't be eligible for the Presidency because they cheated on their spouse... Are we serious? The President was lying to his wife about affairs for years and his political adversaries decided to publicly embarrass him about it... so he lied to them as well... like ummmm duh... who here can say that they would honestly admit to cheating on their spouse if accused of it in public? If you're going to admit to infidelity it should at least be a private matter...

Further, what makes the situation even more disgusting is that while so many people are anti-Clinton, because the Clintons are liars... they had little problem with the Bush administration lying about WMDs to start a WAR!!!! Seriously guys... it's wrong for the President to lie about having an affair, but it's cool for him to waste the lives of brave American Soldiers by lying to start a war?

The worst attack on American Soil Ever occurred during the watch of an incompetent Bush administration... yet people didn't demand that all the incompetents (including the President) be investigated, impeached and executed (or maybe just a little jail time)... but people are still upset that the previous President lied about getting a BJ... I fail to see how this all makes sense...

This is why Politics is so full of lies and misdirection... when you can distract the public and sway voters to vote based on trivial matters and ignore the real issues, then why not? :frown2:

[Feanor]

...
Further, what makes the situation even more disgusting is that while so many people are anti-Clinton, because the Clintons are liars... they had little problem with the Bush administration lying about WMDs to start a WAR!!!! Seriously guys... it's wrong for the President to lie about having an affair, but it's cool for him to waste the lives of brave American Soldiers by lying to start a war?
... :frown2:

We observe that Bill C. is still extremely popular amongst Democrats despite his peccadillos.

It really seem to be Republican who are -- or affect to be -- appalled by his lying about Lewinski. A large percentage hypocrites no doubt. But it is hard for outsiders to understand the rigidly bi-partisan nature of the American system. We here in the GWN had no fewer than five, fully recognized parties participating in our last election.

[Feanor]

... I'm surprised you think like you do from a person of your generation. ...

Mr. P, regarding my generation and with due credit to my dear mother, soon to celebrate her 90th birthday, I had a excellent Presbyterian, and rather puritanical, upbringing.

But what I took away from that, most of all, was that God know that his gift of choice had also bestowed on man, his creature, moral frailty. In his love God provided, through Jesus Christ, that mankind should have away to the means to escape ultimate condemnation depite inevidable sin.

I don't need to remind you that Jesus said, (in these approximate words), "Let him who is without guilt cast the first stone" and also, "Remove the plank from your own eye before attempting to remove the splinter from your neighbour's". Jesus consorted with sinners and sought to redeem them through love.

Christian fundamentalists and the "Christian Right", (and I'm not suggesting that you are one of them, Mr.P), are ultimately very poor Christians. They dwell on the restrictions of the Old Testiment while forgetting about the example of Jesus and the dispensation of the New Testiment. Sadly, they are more like the Biblical Pharisees whom Jesus condemned as hypocrites, than true Christians.

Sorry, everyone, I did promise also not to discuss religion.

[nightflier]

Yeah let's give him a pass. What's the worse he could do? The lying tax cheat is just Secretary of the Treasury. Besides, (in my best little crybaby voice) his little puttie taxes were complicated. Poor little baaaaby. :cryin:

So where exactly is your line between "let's give him a pass" and "child of satan"? :frown2:

Wasn't there a fella a couple of millenia ago who said something about casting the first stone, or something?

Let's be honest, how many of us didn't run throuhg a stop sign this week, steal a pen from the office, drove after having two drinks instead of one, or are planning to stretch the gray area of our tax returns in this particularly tought economic year? Trust me, if this is Geithner's worst crime, I have no problem giving him a pass, compared to, oh, I dunno, authorizing the use of torture? But he's a politician. In the end, there isn't a politician out there who's a saint, and there aren't many of us who are either.

My, this conversation is starting to bleed into the question of whether people are basically good (typically the view of conservatives) or basically bad (ie. typically the view of liberals). Are we sure we want to go there?

:frown2:

[Mr Peabody]

It's man's choice whether or not to sin. Jesus also ran the money changers out of the synagog when they were being dishonest. There are also a multitude of rebukes to entire congregations to individuals. He tells us to keep our own house in order but that doesn't mean to over look or turn a blind eye to what we see is wrong. Jesus did die for the sins of all man but that don't give anyone a free pass. The gift has to be accepted and a change of heart made. No one Christian or otherwise is perfect. That is what is demonstrated by the Old Testament. If one makes that change of heart and decides to follow Christ he/she should be mindful of doing that which is right in God's eyes. We should strive to be like Christ. Jesus also said, "if you resist the devil he will flee from you". I agree whole heartedly that much evil has been done in the guise of religion, from witch hunts to the Klu Klux Klan. But don't try to lay yours or anyone elses weakness on God. To say one can't help it because God made them weak is just wrong and it is not what the Bible teaches. The path to destruction is wide.

[JSE]

Wasn't there a fella a couple of millenia ago who said something about casting the first stone, or something?

Give me a break Mr. Holier-Than-Thou. Leave Jesus out of this. I don't cheat on my taxes, so yes, I will launch some boulders at his ass.


Let's be honest, how many of us didn't run throuhg a stop sign this week, steal a pen from the office, drove after having two drinks instead of one, or are planning to stretch the gray area of our tax returns in this particularly tought economic year? Trust me, if this is Geithner's worst crime, I have no problem giving him a pass,


Again, we're not talking about you and me. We're talking about the freaking Treasury Secretary! Don't you think he should AT THE VERY LEAST be an honest tax payer? You've got some warped sense of right and wrong.



compared to, oh, I dunno, authorizing the use of torture?

And before you go back as usual and say "That's not what I said/meant", that's the way it's coming across to me and probably others on this board so here is my response to the above quoted statement,

Bush was not the first and will surely not be the last. Obama will undoubtedly authorize the same. Maybe not publicly like Bush, but he most certainly will. To think we or any other country or even Obama is above this, is simply naive. I'm not sure what fairy tale world you live in but if some torture here and there will save lives, so be it. That's the world we live in. Sucks, but's it's a reality. I don't want our county sitting back on it's "righteous" ass while the rest of the world rolls over us. Again, sucks but it's reality.

[Feanor]

It's man's choice whether or not to sin. Jesus also ran the money changers out of the synagog when they were being dishonest. There are also a multitude of rebukes to entire congregations to individuals. He tells us to keep our own house in order but that doesn't mean to over look or turn a blind eye to what we see is wrong. Jesus did die for the sins of all man but that don't give anyone a free pass. The gift has to be accepted and a change of heart made. No one Christian or otherwise is perfect. That is what is demonstrated by the Old Testament. If one makes that change of heart and decides to follow Christ he/she should be mindful of doing that which is right in God's eyes. We should strive to be like Christ. Jesus also said, "if you resist the devil he will flee from you". I agree whole heartedly that much evil has been done in the guise of religion, from witch hunts to the Klu Klux Klan. But don't try to lay yours or anyone elses weakness on God. To say one can't help it because God made them weak is just wrong and it is not what the Bible teaches. The path to destruction is wide.

Granted, a lot fewer are going to heaven than think they are.

According to the conventional reform theology I know, man is indeed held responsible for his sins, (as you state), but no one is so perfect, no one's works are so good, that he can earn his way to heaven. Ultimately salvation is by God's grace alone.

In fact, according to the severe theology of Calvin, one cannot earn one's way to salvation even through acceptance of God and contrition, (because man is not capable of these with sufficient completness and persistance). Salvation is by God's election only. But now we're getting into the area of predestination: let's not go there.

Bottom line here is that some of the best qualified people, most likely to do a good job for the nation, are being disqualified from minor personal offences that don't increase the likelihood that they would be crooked office holders. What is most egregious, perhaps, is that the majority of the condemnation is coming from hypocrites motivated by partisanship.

[Ajani]

Bush was not the first and will surely not be the last. Obama will undoubtedly authorize the same. Maybe not publicly like Bush, but he most certainly will. To think we or any other country or even Obama is above this, is simply naive. I'm not sure what fairy tale world you live in but if some torture here and there will save lives, so be it. That's the world we live in. Sucks, but's it's a reality. I don't want our county sitting back on it's "righteous" ass while the rest of the world rolls over us. Again, sucks but it's reality.

Hmmmm....

First off, if all the Presidents were authorizing torture discreetly as you imagine, then why did dumb@$$ Bush do it publicly? Why not just keep it on the down low like the rest?

Secondly, Many military experts say that torture doesn't work... And that many people seem to think torture is fine, because they watched too many damned episodes of 24....

Thirdlyish, If I accused you of plotting an attack on the US and was clearly going to slowly cut off your testicles and toes if you didn't confess, I'm certain you'd 'confess' to anything I tell you to confess to... Confessions during torture are meaningless...

Fourish, when the US authorizes the use of torture (in violation of world laws), you lose all moral standings in the world and further you tell other countries that torturing US soldiers and citizens is acceptable...

Sixish, all those violations of human rights that Bush allowed (such as indefinite imprisonment without trial and the use of torture) only served to convince many borderline countries that the US is the evil hypocrite that the terrorists claim you are.... That only made you less safe, by creating more enemies.... what you need in times of war is allies and world respect...

[bobsticks]

It's interesting to watch those who claim the moral highground engage in the most amoral partisan hackery.

[Auricauricle]

Where did "fivish" go, AJ?

All this pleasant banter is very pleasant, but after awhile I just have to step away. I must say The fact that we are able and willing to discuss these issues, even with a modicum of civility, speaks well for all of us. At the same time, I would hasten to offer an "outsider's" perspective which sees a good thread going south mighty fast. If we're going to discuss things political, let's keep it political. If we want to discuss things religious, then let us find another place to do so. To accomodate both, which seems to be what is really wanted, let the discussion be one of Ethics.

[Ajani]

It's interesting to watch those who claim the moral highground engage in the most amoral partisan hackery.

That's actually why when I discussed the Clinton issue, I never spoke about Republicans or Democrats... I just dealt with the general hypocrisy of crucifying one President for lies about his personal life, while excusing another President for lies about war and general incompetence...

[Ajani]

Where did "fivish" go, AJ?

All this pleasant banter is very pleasant, but after awhile I just have to step away. I must say The fact that we are able and willing to discuss these issues, even with a modicum of civility, speaks well for all of us. At the same time, I would hasten to offer an "outsider's" perspective which sees a good thread going south mighty fast. If we're going to discuss things political, let's keep it political. If we want to discuss things religious, then let us find another place to do so. To accomodate both, which seems to be what is really wanted, let the discussion be one of Ethics.

I do have to agree that this thread has been fairly civilized... and I also think we should have the religious discussion elsewhere (which is why I'm dodging that one).... We can't have both an intense political and an intense religious discussion in one thread without things getting out of hand... The only way this could get anymore tense is if someone starts talking about DBT of Cables....

[bobsticks]

That's actually why when I discussed the Clinton issue, I never spoke about Republicans or Democrats... I just dealt with the general hypocrisy of crucifying one President for lies about his personal life, while excusing another President for lies about war and general incompetence...

I wasn't refering to you, buddy.

[Ajani]

I wasn't refering to you, buddy.

I know... Probably I didn't phrase my response correctly, but I was actually agreeing with your comments... we need to ensure that when we discuss political issues we don't turn it into just a Dem Vs Rep fistfight... Cuz once we get split down party lines, all the good points of the discussion get lost...

[Mr Peabody]

Ajani, I tried to give you a chicklet for the staying alive in this thread comment, it was a good laugh.

I will let the religion go for now as I don't think Feanor and I are saying too much different, except I think Calvin is a nut. If all was predestine then religion would serve no purpose. And as you watch young children at play, whatever the race, and you see their blindness to each other and their innocense in interaction, how can anyone believe man is born evil. I know, I'm done now.

What about Obama's comments he made at that Democratic event? Although he made some good points, the Republicans are wanting the same stuff that got us in this mess, Nute had a good point as well that it didn't help Obama's attempt to to "reach across the isle".

I wonder how many here are hardline party. I personally lean toward the conservative but the Bush administration and actions even repulsed me. McCain and his female bulldog didn't do anything to bring me back either. I guess technically I am independent and wish we could have more than two political parties.

[Auricauricle]

This is, I don't think there are two parties, except in terms of aspiration. Without the benefit of being a Washington Insider, nor having the desire to even know what goes on in those hallowed halls, I think that just about everyone there are obliging bedfellows. Slice it any way you like, but in the end it's a matter of money and privilege, which are corruptible as anything else in nature.

[Rich-n-Texas]

That's actually why when I discussed the Clinton issue, I never spoke about Republicans or Democrats... I just dealt with the general hypocrisy of crucifying one President for lies about his personal life, while excusing another President for lies about war and general incompetence...
Personal life??? Didn't Monica give him a nob job in the White House? I think there were some stains on the carpet too weren't there?

Personal life? :out:

[Ajani]

Personal life??? Didn't Monica give him a nob job in the White House? I think there were some stains on the carpet too weren't there?

Personal life? :out:

And? Is the President's sex life a public issue?

Heck... I could even understand crucifying Clinton if you were harsher with Bush... but for Bush to get away with only a few shoes thrown at him, while you attempted to impeach Clinton, just makes no sense to me... Is Clinton having an affair in the Oval office worse than Bush lying to start a War and gross incompetence during 9/11 and Katrina?

If you attempted to impeach both Bush and Clinton, then I'd just accept that the moral standards in America are very high... but bringing the hammer down on Clinton, while giving a full pardon to Bush just smacks of Hypocrisy...

[Rich-n-Texas]

And? Is the President's sex life a public issue?
When he's the president of the United States... YES! WTF's a matter with you Ajani?

[Ajani]

When he's the president of the United States... YES! WTF's a matter with you Ajani?

I disagree... but more importantly, where's the answer to the other part of my question? Let me repeat it, since you somehow overlooked it:

Is Clinton having an affair in the Oval office worse than Bush lying to start a War and gross incompetence during 9/11 and Katrina?

[Auricauricle]

Anarchy now!!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Let me set you straight Ajani as it seems you and Dudley have rationalized the FACT that Bill Clinton, while serving as President of the United States, abused his power when he GOT A BLOW JOB from an intern while in his office in the White House, right out of reality. That's not "personal sex life" that's ABUSE OF OFFICE. Can you get that?

I didn't read any further into your post because between you and Beetle Bailey, reality doesn't look to be part of the agenda here. What does the word "Impeachment" do for ya friend?

[bobsticks]

Let me set you straight Ajani as it seems you and Dudley have rationalized the FACT that Bill Clinton, while serving as President of the United States, abused his power when he GOT A BLOW JOB from an intern while in his office in the White House, right out of reality. That's not "personal sex life" that's ABUSE OF OFFICE. Can you get that?


What was ever reported about said fellating act that led you to believe it was coerced, Rich? Just curious.

Seriously look at ol' boys' options. Few and unpleasant...

[nightflier]

Give me a break Mr. Holier-Than-Thou. Leave Jesus out of this. I don't cheat on my taxes, so yes, I will launch some boulders at his ass.

I never siad I was a saint either, and I seriously doubt you are either, even if you don't cheat on your taxes. Now who consinders themselves holier?

And as far as leaving Jesus out of it, some people certainly look ready to start stoning old Geithner, without seeing the bigger picture. Why not stone the whole cabinet while you're at it? After all, it's not like Geithner is unique here. Heck if we're going to stone folks, why not include the Washington lobbyists and lawyers, too? Hey just firebom the whole city, they are all corrupt at some level, right? Well, let's not stop there, let's start doing that in all the major cities, and well, you guessed it, pretty soon you're throwing stones at yourself. So let's stop the hypocrisy, please. If Jesus was around today, he'd be appaled at how many people consider themselves Christians and thus somehow think that makes them judges at the same time. I'm pretty sure from my 20 years of Christian upbriging, that somewhere in there it clearly said that there is only one judge, and that one judge sure as hell ain't one of us.

Want to start a real discussion? Consider how un-Christian the death penalty is. Oh, now wait a minute, that's way too controversial, and besides it's OT, so let's not go there, right? Why? It's the same logic as above, we just don't feel very comfortable admitting it. The same good Christians who sit in the front piews, would like nothing more than to personally pull the switch. Now what do you suppose Jesus would say of them?


Again, we're not talking about you and me. We're talking about the freaking Treasury Secretary! Don't you think he should AT THE VERY LEAST be an honest tax payer? You've got some warped sense of right and wrong.

OK, JSE, I think you're the one with the warped sense of right and wrong. We're talking about a tax-evader, and you want to throw the book at him, but have no issues with admitted torturers whatsoever? I would say that's a bit more twisted, don't you think? :out:


And before you go back as usual and say "That's not what I said/meant", that's the way it's coming across to me and probably others on this board so here is my response to the above quoted statement

No, I'll stand by this post, you can count on that. And don't start characterizing me when your real intent is just to sideline my point.


Bush was not the first and will surely not be the last. Obama will undoubtedly authorize the same. Maybe not publicly like Bush, but he most certainly will. To think we or any other country or even Obama is above this, is simply naive. I'm not sure what fairy tale world you live in but if some torture here and there will save lives, so be it. That's the world we live in. Sucks, but's it's a reality. I don't want our county sitting back on it's "righteous" ass while the rest of the world rolls over us. Again, sucks but it's reality.

So, notwithstanding everything that Ajani said already (BTW, thanks for providing some levity, Ajani), you're going to stand before us and say that torture is OK, but tax evasion is not? Isn't that the same twisted logic that suggests that starting a war for profit and lying to the country about it is OK, but getting freaky with an intern in the oval office is not?

So just tell us already, is tax evasion as bad as sticking bamboo shoots under some poor guy's fingernails?

Oh, wait, are you going to give us one of those "that's not what I mean" posts, next?

[Rich-n-Texas]

What was ever reported about said fellating act that led you to believe it was coerced, Rich? Just curious.
Coerced? What are you talking about? Doesn't matter if it was coerced or consentual, it's abuse of the highest office in the land.

I feel like I'm talking to a brick frickin' wall!

No, the whole idea here is to divert attention away from the original topic, which included a "tough decision" by Obama to appoint a tax cheat, and nominate two other tax cheats who turned it down for the good of the country (read... for the good of their careers). How come nightflier was the only non-conservative to acknowledge Obama's poor decision? Have Ajani or Bill said anything about it?

Yeah. :rolleyes:

[bobsticks]

Coerced? What are you talking about? Doesn't matter if it was coerced or consentual, it's abuse of the highest office in the land.

Actually, it's abuse of the highest officer in the land. It's not abuse of the office unless the stains didn't come out.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Well then I want somma what he got. And I'm NOT paying for it! :incazzato:

[bobsticks]

I never siad I was a saint either, and I seriously doubt you are either, even if you don't cheat on your taxes. Now who consinders themselves holier?

And as far as leaving Jesus out of it, some people certainly look ready to start stoning old Geithner, without seeing the bigger picture. Why not stone the whole cabinet while you're at it? After all, it's not like Geithner is unique here. Heck if we're going to stone folks, why not include the Washington lobbyists and lawyers, too? Hey just firebom the whole city, they are all corrupt at some level, right? Well, let's not stop there, let's start doing that in all the major cities, and well, you guessed it, pretty soon you're throwing stones at yourself. So let's stop the hypocrisy, please. If Jesus was around today, he'd be appaled at how many people consider themselves Christians and thus somehow think that makes them judges at the same time. I'm pretty sure from my 20 years of Christian upbriging, that somewhere in there it clearly said that there is only one judge, and that one judge sure as hell ain't one of us.

Want to start a real discussion? Consider how un-Christian the death penalty is. Oh, now wait a minute, that's way too controversial, and besides it's OT, so let's not go there, right? Why? It's the same logic as above, we just don't feel very comfortable admitting it. The same good Christians who sit in the front piews, would like nothing more than to personally pull the switch. Now what do you suppose Jesus would say of them?



OK, JSE, I think you're the one with the warped sense of right and wrong. We're talking about a tax-evader, and you want to throw the book at him, but have no issues with admitted torturers whatsoever? I would say that's a bit more twisted, don't you think? :out:



No, I'll stand by this post, you can count on that. And don't start characterizing me when your real intent is just to sideline my point.



So, notwithstanding everything that Ajani said already (BTW, thanks for providing some levity, Ajani), you're going to stand before us and say that torture is OK, but tax evasion is not? Isn't that the same twisted logic that suggests that starting a war for profit and lying to the country about it is OK, but getting freaky with an intern in the oval office is not?

So just tell us already, is tax evasion as bad as sticking bamboo shoots under some poor guy's fingernails?

Oh, wait, are you going to give us one of those "that's not what I mean" posts, next?

The complexities of situational ethics truly elude you, don't they?

Maybe we should put one of the co-chairs of NAMBLA as a Boy Scouts Troop Leader. The same logic apllies. I can't believe that this jump from the realm of basic human common sense isn't just for the sake of argumentation which leads me to believe it's simply in defense of the nominee from your side of the aisle. If this were a proposal from a Republican or a Conservative you'd be up in arms.

By the way, the mere act of voting is, in and of itself, an act of judgement.

[bobsticks]

Well then I want somma what he got. And I'm NOT paying for it! :incazzato:

Bill took the Presidential freebie, yer thinkin' of the Governor of New York and his hi-dollar buttplug fetish.

[Ajani]

Coerced? What are you talking about? Doesn't matter if it was coerced or consentual, it's abuse of the highest office in the land.

I feel like I'm talking to a brick frickin' wall!

No, the whole idea here is to divert attention away from the original topic, which included a "tough decision" by Obama to appoint a tax cheat, and nominate two other tax cheats who turned it down for the good of the country (read... for the good of their careers). How come nightflier was the only non-conservative to acknowledge Obama's poor decision? Have Ajani or Bill said anything about it?

Yeah. :rolleyes:




Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
So how come nobody has brought up the fact that three of Obama's appointees/nominees are tax cheats?

That reminds of a joke I heard about that issue:

No idea who said it though, but basically A Republican said: "No wonder the Democrats have no problem raising taxes, since they don't pay them anyway"...

Yeah it is embarrassing and frankly rather strange that so many appointees have tax issues... but since I haven't researched if this was an issue with previous administrations also, I can't say whether it is a sign of poor candidate screening and selection etc...

Since I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, Liberal or Conservative, I don't need to "divert attention" from bad decisions by any politician.

I answered your post on the very page you posted it... and since then have advanced the discussion with other relevant political topics... While you've still ignored my question about why you are all for impeaching Clinton, but Bush should get away unscathed...

[Rich-n-Texas]

Okay. Bush acted on the information given him by his staff. Are you forgetting that? And also remember it's the Commander-in-Chief's job to make sure the country is kept safe. Do you also forget that 1000's of people were killed on 9/11? My president had every right to take action after we, not St. Kitts, were attacked by terrorists. Should we have gone into Iraq? Maybe, maybe not. Is it in the best interest of the entire world to allow a dictator to kill his own people with chemical weapons, and invade his neighbors in an attempt to monopilize a large portion of the worlds oil supply? You tell me Ajani.


...While you've still ignored my question about why you are all for impeaching Clinton, but Bush should get away unscathed...
Now you're making assumptions. Where did I say I'm "all for impeaching Clinton"? The House DID impeach clinton, didn't they? It's only because of 10 morally corrupt senators that he wasn't run out of office.

BTW, if I felt this forum was like a prison, I'd be long gone.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Mr Peabody]

C'mon Ajani, after several years the people will have forgotten about all the bad Bush may have done, like Reagans memory lapses on selling drugs for guns, and then some one will come out and say what a good president Bush was and we'll name an airport after him. I'm sure all the seniors appreciate Reagan creating the tax on social security too. I wonder if the congressional pension is taxed. I think they should be on SSA with everyone else.

[Feanor]

Actually, it's abuse of the highest officer in the land. It's not abuse of the office unless the stains didn't come out.

LOL :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Feanor]

...
No, the whole idea here is to divert attention away from the original topic, which included a "tough decision" by Obama to appoint a tax cheat, and nominate two other tax cheats who turned it down for the good of the country (read... for the good of their careers). How come nightflier was the only non-conservative to acknowledge Obama's poor decision? Have Ajani or Bill said anything about it?

Yeah. :rolleyes:
Yeah indeed. Obama admitted he "screwed up". I'll admit it too but not the same reason as you.

Obama "screwed up" because he misjudge that so many American's put "character" as a criteria for office ahead of knowledge and judgement. What's really grotesque is that "character" is defined in absurdly narrow and prudish terms, viz. it's excusable to torture people but outrageous to have a passing affair with a coworker.

I don't know or understand the details of his nominees' tax avoidance/evasion: it could have been just bad tax advice. But the principle remains that minor personal lapses don't necessarily indicate that a person will be a crooked much less incompontent office holder.

[Ajani]

Okay. Bush acted on the information given him by his staff. Are you forgetting that?

:shocked:

So basically the fact that Bush flat out admits that he doesn't even read the newspaper and only relies on information from his advisors is an excuse? As a Manager I know full well that only a complete moron relies solely on the word of his/her staff... I certainly can't just wipe my hands of department screw ups by blaming my staff.. and neither can the President..

Bush was lazy and incompetent... End of Story...


And also remember it's the Commander-in-Chief's job to make sure the country is kept safe. Do you also forget that 1000's of people were killed on 9/11? My president had every right to take action after we, not St. Kitts, were attacked by terrorists.

The correct decision after the 9/11 attacks was to deliberate and figure out who attacked, then retaliate... The Bush Administration did that and I was even impressed with Bush at that time... Afghanistan was the right target... The terrorists declared war on America and the only response was to fight back... I support Bush on that decision...


Should we have gone into Iraq? Maybe, maybe not. Is it in the best interest of the entire world to allow a dictator to kill his own people with chemical weapons, and invade his neighbors in an attempt to monopilize a large portion of the worlds oil supply? You tell me Ajani.

This is where Bush lost my respect: IRAQ... He let the terrorists responsible for 9/11 get away, so he could pursue some BS grudge against Iraq... That to me is treason... He screwed the American public and the rest of the world by taking his eye off the target... And I can't accept any excuses for that... His job as Commander-in-Chief was to ensure that Bin Laden and Al Queda were killed, or captured and killed... not to let them retreat and regroup, while brave US soldiers were sent to their deaths over lies about WMDs in Iraq...


Now you're making assumptions. Where did I say I'm "all for impeaching Clinton"? The House DID impeach clinton, didn't they? It's only because of 10 morally corrupt senators that he wasn't run out of office.

Fine... if you feel that the President's affair was a reason to run him out of office, then so be it... Well just have to agree to disagree on that issue..


BTW, if I felt this forum was like a prison, I'd be long gone.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

I would certainly hope so...

[Ajani]

C'mon Ajani, after several years the people will have forgotten about all the bad Bush may have done, like Reagans memory lapses on selling drugs for guns, and then some one will come out and say what a good president Bush was and we'll name an airport after him. I'm sure all the seniors appreciate Reagan creating the tax on social security too. I wonder if the congressional pension is taxed. I think they should be on SSA with everyone else.

That would actually be pretty funny if it wasn't so true... All his mistakes will be blamed on 'poor advice from his staff' and he'll be remembered as a brave Leader... :yikes:

[Ajani]

To Rich and all the other haters who are against Clinton for having an affair, check out this very short video and tell me that you don't understand why the man had to cheat:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/07/hillary-ditches-kiss-from_n_164946.html

[GMichael]

To Rich and all the other haters who are against Clinton for having an affair, check out this very short video and tell me that you don't understand why the man had to cheat:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/07/hillary-ditches-kiss-from_n_164946.html


But did he have to do it at work? Not for nothin', but I would get canned if I tried that at work.

[Ajani]

But did he have to do it at work? Not for nothin', but I would get canned if I tried that at work.

Seriously though, the link was more a joke than a serious justification for his affair...

I think the point you raised about him doing it at work is a valid point... Though it becomes kind of tricky since the President lives at the White House... so work and home are the same place...

[GMichael]

Seriously though, the link was more a joke than a serious justification for his affair...

I think the point you raised about him doing it at work is a valid point... Though it becomes kind of tricky since the President lives at the White House... so work and home are the same place...

I'm still laughing. But doesn't he have a bedroom or some other personal area?:yikes:

I don't mean to brand him as a criminal. Just dishonest.

[Auricauricle]

Rightly or wrongly, Bush will be blamed for the fiasco that was his post 911 response and the abuses of powers that occurred when he was at the helm. It has been reported that much of went on without his knowledge, but since he was on top of the (dung) heap, he will bear the cross.

If you ask me, Bush was happy to be ensconced in what looked like a relatively cozy seat of office. The world was a seemingly peaceful planet, with brush fires here and there that did not amount to more than minor annoyances that could be easily brushed aside or dealt with quickly and effectively. In reality, the country and its inner machinery was a mess. Economic masterminds of academia were working on algorithms and impossibly convoluted instruments to predict the vagaries of the marketplace. Those who were not so adept strong-armed lenders and persons of influence to open the market for everyone, including many who had no idea that they were over their heads. Somehow or another, we were all duped into thinking that the venal elite had suddenly and hearteningly altruistic, and that the pax Americana would signal a rise in fortune for even the most desperate....Fat chance.

The bombing of the World Trade Center was not all together unpredictable and signalled the end of the Great American Illusion that our business as usual policies here and abroad would continue to shield the American public from the horrible truths that kept the country afloat. The bombing was marked the returning of the vultures who finally came home to roost. The price of our consumtion, in oil and our position on the world stage, was to be paid in blood. In placing our faith in the hands of ministers and kingdoms who had no mind or countenance for anything American, we set ourselves up for a terrible and catastrophic fall.

When we did fall, the house of cards exposed the soft American underbelly. We had grown fat, living a fairly lavish life, that scarcely recognized that our policies and practices here and abroad were and are either flawed or in dire need of revamping. Our healthcare industry is a shambling and arcane mess; our educational system is a total embarassment; and our infrastructure is a catastrophic calamity.

We can lay the whole pile of this crap at Bush's feet if we like. I despise the man, and would like to see him get his due, but I am not so myopic to think that he deserves the brunt of it, for his minions and the rats who curried their favor are just as deservant of the blame. I am also cognizant of the fact that even Billy Boy cannot be fully exculpated, for even while he was in power, the buzzing aparatus that contributed to our downfall was whirring away, awaiting the simulus that would expose the whole messy debacle.

Obama is the reasonable voice that America has long needed to hear. He may not get everything right, and there can be no illusion that all of his appointments and policies will set everything back, neatly in place. Even so, as a man of power and such authority, his presence assures me that we Americans are finally facing some very hard truths about ourselves and are willing to put our backs into the effort of setting things aright at last. It is hard, terrible work, and many will suffer, some needlessly, some by consequence of actions that were set in place a long time ago.

In the meantime, I hope that we can all sit back and take that hard look within ourselves and resolve that we can do better and that we will be much better. This planet will continue to spin, with or without us; our civilization will, sooner or later, crumble like all the empires that preceded it. In the words of Winston Churchill, maybe we can say that now is "Our Finest Hour".

[Feanor]

...
This is where Bush lost my respect: IRAQ... He let the terrorists responsible for 9/11 get away, so he could pursue some BS grudge against Iraq... That to me is treason... He screwed the American public and the rest of the world by taking his eye off the target... And I can't accept any excuses for that... His job as Commander-in-Chief was to ensure that Bin Laden and Al Queda were killed, or captured and killed... not to let them retreat and regroup, while brave US soldiers were sent to their deaths over lies about WMDs in Iraq...
...

I didn't think that war in Iraq was good idea at the time -- despite that I believed that WMD existed.

I belived a few things back in the day:

Saddam was no ally or supporter of Bin Laden nor was he supporting Al Queda in any way except idle rhetoric. Bin Laden has always hated secular Muslim leaders like Saddam; he and they had a totally different perspective on how a government of Muslims ought to work.
It was obivious that invasion in Iraq would add fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism in the Muslim, and particularly the Arab, world, and DECREASE, not increase, American and western security.
Saddam was a thoroughly evil individual, but in the medium term at least Iragis would resent American as much as they would be glad to be rid of Saddam. (Peoples everywhere resent foreign occupation regardless.)
Saddam's ambitions, even assuming he had WMD, could be contained by means other than an invasion.I was correct on all scores, I should say, except the very last point is impossible to prove. My opposition to the invasion of Iraq was never pacifist but I read the practical circumstances pretty well. How was it Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld / Rove couldn't do so well? Basically because they were arrogant, ignorant individuals; (the real Axis of Evil).

[Ajani]

I don't mean to brand him as a criminal. Just dishonest.

That's my assessment too... the man is sleazy and dishonest... whether he should have been fired for it, is still open to debate though... And frankly , I'm still undecided on whether what he did was enough to justify sacking a President....

[Auricauricle]

Hey, don't knock sleazy!

[Ajani]

I didn't think that war in Iraq was good idea at the time -- despite that I believed that WMD existed.

That about sums it all up for so many people who opposed the Iraq war... Even those who believed WMD existed, knew there was no correlation between Iraq and 9/11 or Al Queda...


I belived a few things back in the day:

Saddam was no ally or supporter of Bin Laden nor was he supporting Al Queda in any way except idle rhetoric. Bin Laden has always hated secular Muslim leaders like Saddam; he and they had a totally different perspective on how a government of Muslims ought to work.
It was obivious that invasion in Iraq would add fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism in the Muslim, and particularly the Arab, world, and DECREASE, not increase, American and western security.
Saddam was a thoroughly evil individual, but in the medium term at least Iragis would resent American as much as they would be glad to be rid of Saddam. (Peoples everywhere resent foreign occupation regardless.)
Saddam's ambitions, even assuming he had WMD, could be contained by means other than an invasion.I was correct on all scores, I should say, except the very last point is impossible to prove. My opposition to the invasion of Iraq was never pacifist but I read the practical circumstances pretty well. How was it Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld / Rove couldn't do so well? Basically because they were arrogant, ignorant individuals; (the real Axis of Evil).

I thought essentially the same thing on all those points and I think a lot of people had very similar opinions...

[Ajani]

Hey, don't knock sleazy!

Conscience bothering you?

[JSE]

I never siad I was a saint either, and I seriously doubt you are either, even if you don't cheat on your taxes. Now who consinders themselves holier?

I'm sorry but.....What? Um, yeah you still do.


And as far as leaving Jesus out of it, some people certainly look ready to start stoning old Geithner, without seeing the bigger picture. Why not stone the whole cabinet while you're at it? After all, it's not like Geithner is unique here. Heck if we're going to stone folks, why not include the Washington lobbyists and lawyers, too? Hey just firebom the whole city, they are all corrupt at some level, right? Well, let's not stop there, let's start doing that in all the major cities, and well, you guessed it, pretty soon you're throwing stones at yourself. So let's stop the hypocrisy, please. If Jesus was around today, he'd be appaled at how many people consider themselves Christians and thus somehow think that makes them judges at the same time. I'm pretty sure from my 20 years of Christian upbriging, that somewhere in there it clearly said that there is only one judge, and that one judge sure as hell ain't one of us.

So since none of us are free from sin, let's give other's a pass? Is that the what your saying?

Do me a favor and answer this one simple question.

Should a known tax evader be the US Treasury Secretary? It's a yes or no question. Do you not see the conflict?


Want to start a real discussion? Consider how un-Christian the death penalty is. Oh, now wait a minute, that's way too controversial, and besides it's OT, so let's not go there, right? Why? It's the same logic as above, we just don't feel very comfortable admitting it. The same good Christians who sit in the front piews, would like nothing more than to personally pull the switch. Now what do you suppose Jesus would say of them?

Divert, Divert!


OK, JSE, I think you're the one with the warped sense of right and wrong. We're talking about a tax-evader, and you want to throw the book at him, but have no issues with admitted torturers whatsoever? I would say that's a bit more twisted, don't you think? :out:

These are two completely unrelated issues. The issue is whether a known tax evader sould hold one of the higest financial offices in the country? See my last to repsonses just above. Try to set aside your hatred of the past administration and deal with the issue at hand.



So, notwithstanding everything that Ajani said already (BTW, thanks for providing some levity, Ajani), you're going to stand before us and say that torture is OK, but tax evasion is not? Isn't that the same twisted logic that suggests that starting a war for profit and lying to the country about it is OK, but getting freaky with an intern in the oval office is not?

Neither is OK. Never said they were. I as well as many others have a problem with Geithner holding such a high office. Instead of trying to muddy up the waters, just tell us if you think it makes sense for a tax evader to be Treasyury Secretary? Again, it's a simple yes or no question.

And, torture is NOT OK in my book but I understand that it's sometimes a necessary evil that exists in our world today. A tax evaders being appointed Treasury Secretary just doesn't seem like a necessary evil to me. Seems like a simple fix to me. Maybe I am wrong here? I don't know? What the hell, how's this for a solution....Don't appoint a known tax evader in the first place and if you later find out about it, appoint someone else. Preferably a non tax evader. What am I thinking...... that makes sense. Sorry.


So just tell us already, is tax evasion as bad as sticking bamboo shoots under some poor guy's fingernails?

Of course not. But again, they are two completely unrelated issues. Your the one who seems to just keep bringing up the past to justify the future. Because the past administration did bad things, we need to give Obama and his staff a little slack? Well that slack is only going to perpetuate the political cycle we have been stuck in for decades. Let it go man. I thought you wanted a new better government? I guess your still stuck in the "Us vs. Them" political mentality. Myself and others want to move on.


Oh, wait, are you going to give us one of those "that's not what I mean" posts, next?

Not quite, you took that crown long ago.

[Ajani]

Rightly or wrongly, Bush will be blamed for the fiasco that was his post 911 response and the abuses of powers that occurred when he was at the helm. It has been reported that much of went on without his knowledge, but since he was on top of the (dung) heap, he will bear the cross.

If you ask me, Bush was happy to be ensconced in what looked like a relatively cozy seat of office. The world was a seemingly peaceful planet, with brush fires here and there that did not amount to more than minor annoyances that could be easily brushed aside or dealt with quickly and effectively. In reality, the country and its inner machinery was a mess. Economic masterminds of academia were working on algorithms and impossibly convoluted instruments to predict the vagaries of the marketplace. Those who were not so adept strong-armed lenders and persons of influence to open the market for everyone, including many who had no idea that they were over their heads. Somehow or another, we were all duped into thinking that the venal elite had suddenly and hearteningly altruistic, and that the pax Americana would signal a rise in fortune for even the most desperate....Fat chance.

The bombing of the World Trade Center was not all together unpredictable and signalled the end of the Great American Illusion that our business as usual policies here and abroad would continue to shield the American public from the horrible truths that kept the country afloat. The bombing was marked the returning of the vultures who finally came home to roost. The price of our consumtion, in oil and our position on the world stage, was to be paid in blood. In placing our faith in the hands of ministers and kingdoms who had no mind or countenance for anything American, we set ourselves up for a terrible and catastrophic fall.

When we did fall, the house of cards exposed the soft American underbelly. We had grown fat, living a fairly lavish life, that scarcely recognized that our policies and practices here and abroad were and are either flawed or in dire need of revamping. Our healthcare industry is a shambling and arcane mess; our educational system is a total embarassment; and our infrastructure is a catastrophic calamity.

We can lay the whole pile of this crap at Bush's feet if we like. I despise the man, and would like to see him get his due, but I am not so myopic to think that he deserves the brunt of it, for his minions and the rats who curried their favor are just as deservant of the blame. I am also cognizant of the fact that even Billy Boy cannot be fully exculpated, for even while he was in power, the buzzing aparatus that contributed to our downfall was whirring away, awaiting the simulus that would expose the whole messy debacle.

Obama is the reasonable voice that America has long needed to hear. He may not get everything right, and there can be no illusion that all of his appointments and policies will set everything back, neatly in place. Even so, as a man of power and such authority, his presence assures me that we Americans are finally facing some very hard truths about ourselves and are willing to put our backs into the effort of setting things aright at last. It is hard, terrible work, and many will suffer, some needlessly, some by consequence of actions that were set in place a long time ago.

In the meantime, I hope that we can all sit back and take that hard look within ourselves and resolve that we can do better and that we will be much better. This planet will continue to spin, with or without us; our civilization will, sooner or later, crumble like all the empires that preceded it. In the words of Winston Churchill, maybe we can say that now is "Our Finest Hour".

Excellent post BTW.... It even brings out a point I should mention: while I much preferred Clinton's Presidency to Bush, and I think Bush and his 'staff' should all be held accountable for the last 8 years... The problems America faces didn't start with Bush, many were there during the Clinton years as well... I'm sure they also started long before Clinton or even the 1st Bush... Just some Presidents have been better at not making the problem too much worse, while others (Bush especially) have driven it to crisis stage... It's not a Democrat or Republican issue... but a question of how to heal very old wounds and finally address issues that have been ignored for years or even decades...

Obama had the sense to at least acknowledge & openly discuss the real issues during his campaign... but whether he can and will be able to deal with them or whether he just brought them up to gain office, will only be determined by time... I really prefer to just give him the benefit of the doubt...

[Auricauricle]

Who...me? Nah, just an annoyin' hummin'....Ah, the amp!

[JSE]

To Rich and all the other haters who are against Clinton for having an affair, check out this very short video and tell me that you don't understand why the man had to cheat:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/07/hillary-ditches-kiss-from_n_164946.html

The affair was wrong on many counts but let's not all forget he lied under oath.

I thought Lewenski (sp?) Gate was way overblown and very political but in the end, Bill did it to himself by lying about it under oath.

[Auricauricle]

I just wish he told everybody to just mind their own damn business!

[Ajani]

The affair was wrong on many counts but let's not all forget he lied under oath.

I thought Lewenski (sp?) Gate was way overblown and very political but in the end, Bill did it to himself by lying about it under oath.

Well said...

It was a nasty and totally political move to make such an issue of the President's affair in the 1st place... but Bill totally goofed it up by lying under oath instead of just doing as AA suggested and telling everyone to
just mind their own damn business!

[Auricauricle]

I hear they do Karayoke there, now.....

Okay, JoSE, I got it....It was overblown....I'm cryin'.

[JSE]

I hear they do Karayoke there, now.....

Okay, JoSE, I got it....It was overblown....I'm cryin'.


I guess overblown was a poor choice of words. :eek6:

[Auricauricle]

Mebbe....

[Ajani]

I hear they do Karayoke there, now.....

Okay, JoSE, I got it....It was overblown....I'm cryin'.

Need a tissue?

Previous joke edited as I suspect it might have been too vulgar for the forum

[Auricauricle]

Pass on dat...

[nightflier]

So since none of us are free from sin, let's give other's a pass? Is that the what your saying?Do me a favor and answer this one simple question. Should a known tax evader be the US Treasury Secretary? It's a yes or no question. Do you not see the conflict?

I never said Geithner should get a pass. He's a tax-evader, and he's a crook because of it. But what I did say was that he isn't stepping down, so he's going to continue in his position, and no amount of whining here is going to change that.


These are two completely unrelated issues. The issue is whether a known tax evader sould hold one of the higest financial offices in the country? See my last to repsonses just above.

No they are not unrelated issues. Your perverse hatred of Geithner is a bit hypocritical in light of the fact that you continue to excuse torturers (see your comments below). If you consider the overwhelming evidence against torture, as explained by Ajani, you'll realize that this is not a necessary evil. Why throw the book at Geithner, when his "crime" pales in comparison to ripping someone's eyelids off with a pair of pliers? That by the way, was the fate on poor woman in Bagram prison? Rummy knew of this case and tried to sweep it under the rug. And you call that a necessary evil we should just accept? But Geithner's tax flob, oh no, that's beyond the pale, people.

Like it or not, tax-evasion is perhaps more of a necessary evil than we would like to admit. We hear about high-profile people getting caught all the time, but just about every regular American steps over the line with taxes at some point. Even if you're friggin' Mother Theresa when it comes to charity, and you itemize your taxes, you're bound to miscalculate how much that old pair of sneakers is really worth. There are so many questionable deductions in the tax-code that this "crime" is inevitable. And if you're lucky enough to belong to the higher tax brackets, the US tax-code is even more ridiculously written in your favor.

The bottom line is that we don't know how much of a "criminal" Geithner is, but we do know how much of criminal Rummy, Cheney, and Bush are. After all, they came out and bragged about it.


And, torture is NOT OK in my book but I understand that it's sometimes a necessary evil that exists in our world today. A tax evaders being appointed Treasury Secretary just doesn't seem like a necessary evil to me. Seems like a simple fix to me. Maybe I am wrong here? I don't know? What the hell, how's this for a solution....Don't appoint a known tax evader in the first place and if you later find out about it, appoint someone else. Preferably a non tax evader. What am I thinking...... that makes sense. Sorry.

No that doesn't make sense. You're still excusing something as appallingly horrible as torture but you can't let it go about Geithner. To me that's completely twisted and makes no sense at all. Considering we really don't know how crooked Geithner is, and we sure as hell know how crooked some of our past politicians are, that's makes it even more perverse.


Of course not. But again, they are two completely unrelated issues.

Not they're not, the hypocrisy is that it isn't.


Your the one who seems to just keep bringing up the past to justify the future.

Oh, I'm sorry, looking at the past is not a good thing, now? Let's sweep all that under the rug? Sorry, I don't agree with that. I would very much like to get to the bottom of past crimes... everyone's.

Wait a minute, Geithner's "crime" is in the past too, no?


Because the past administration did bad things, we need to give Obama and his staff a little slack?

Well, considering how many signing statements Shrub used, I think that's not a horrible thought.


Well that slack is only going to perpetuate the political cycle we have been stuck in for decades.

If Shrub or McCaing were at the helm, I'd agree with you, but now, I doubt it. You're just speculating, and frankly it doesn't look like that will be the way things will go from here on out.


Let it go man. I thought you wanted a new better government? I guess your still stuck in the "Us vs. Them" political mentality. Myself and others want to move on.

Actually, I think you're the one who won't let it go. Geithner's going to stay, so maybe you need to let that go.


Not quite, you took that crown long ago.

Whatever. Anyhow, you're the one who's flip-flopping all over the place, here. I say you're not setting a good example for yourself.


Auric, I like that avatar, it really brings it all together, you know.

[JSE]

I never said Geithner should get a pass. He's a tax-evader, and he's a crook because of it. But what I did say was that he isn't stepping down, so he's going to continue in his position, and no amount of whining here is going to change that.

Actually enough whining may change things. It's called public opinion. Some politicians still are concerned about it. Obama might listen if enough people voice their concern about Geithner.


No they are not unrelated issues. Your perverse hatred of Geithner is a bit hypocritical in light of the fact that you continue to excuse torturers (see your comments below).

Perverse hatred? Where the hell are you getting that from? I just don't think he's qualified to be the Treasury Secretary. I think he's a bad choice and has no business being in his position. Perverse hatred?

BTW, the same can be said of you. You are clearly against torture yet are willing to let another crimes slide. So I guess by your own argument, your a hypocrit as well.



No that doesn't make sense. You're still excusing something as appallingly horrible as torture but you can't let it go about Geithner. To me that's completely twisted and makes no sense at all. Considering we really don't know how crooked Geithner is, and we sure as hell know how crooked some of our past politicians are, that's makes it even more perverse.

Please see Stick's last comments. He sums up my feelings much eloquently than I am able.


Oh, I'm sorry, looking at the past is not a good thing, now? Let's sweep all that under the rug? Sorry, I don't agree with that. I would very much like to get to the bottom of past crimes... everyone's.

Looking at the past is fine, being crippled with hatred to the point you can't move forward is not.


Wait a minute, Geithner's "crime" is in the past too, no?

Are you really that dense?


If Shrub or McCaing were at the helm, I'd agree with you, but now, I doubt it. You're just speculating, and frankly it doesn't look like that will be the way things will go from here on out.

Let's all hope your right.


Actually, I think you're the one who won't let it go. Geithner's going to stay, so maybe you need to let that go.

You seem to be confusing past and present again. Geithner's is in the here and now. Bush is the past. Simple really. Maybe it will click for you soon?


Whatever. Anyhow, you're the one who's flip-flopping all over the place, here. I say you're not setting a good example for yourself.

Huh? Now your just reaching for straws. Divert, Divert.


So Nightflier, when you gonna answer my question? Simple yes or no. I'm guessing your afraid to answer it but I'll ask it again......

Should a known tax evader be the US Treasury Secretary?

I'll be waiting. (probably for a long time though)

[Feanor]

......
Should a known tax evader be the US Treasury Secretary?
...

The short answer would seem to be, "NO". This, for my part, I'd concede. :(

[Ajani]

Should a known tax evader be the US Treasury Secretary?


Also - No... not unless there's a damn good explanation of why he goofed the taxes... neither deceit nor incompetence is an excuse... I'm thinking something along the lines of his tax accountant messing up his return and embarrassing him....

[nightflier]

Should a known tax evader be the US Treasury Secretary?
I'll be waiting. (probably for a long time though)

...you'd know that I said no. He shouldn't.

But that says nothing about the criminality of our politicians. Trying to say that crimes are the same, tax evader, adulterer, or torturer, is completely twisted. Just as we should not excuse tax-evaders we also shouldn't excuse known torturers (both those who do it and those who order them to do it). In all your posts, you say that torture is a necessary evil (which I and others here disagree with), that can be overlooked but that tax evasion is not. There is a question of degrees. I would rather have a tax-evader in office than a torturer. Torture doesn't work, makes the all of us Americans look like hypocrites, is illegal, is cruel & inhumane, and has widespread ramifications for our own POWs. Tax evasion doesn't quite carry such a heavy price-tag. So why should we be so zealous to punish when we don't pursue torturers with the same zeal and excuse their actions as necessary evil.

Second, we don't know how "criminal" Geithner is. Do you know the details of his "crime"? Did he even know that he was cheating? It's easy for us to conclude he's guilty because he's a politician, but that's by association, and prejudiced as well. The fact is, none of us here know whether Geithner is really a thief who stole from the government. We speculate, we guess, we associate, but we don't really know. Cheney, Rummy: guilty as sin; after all, they bragged about their crimes in front of the camera.

Finally, I consider it hypocritical for anyone to point the finger at Geithner when we are all guilty of some transgression. Geithner gets the shaft because he's high-profile, a politician, a Democrat, and let's be honest, because he's part of Obama's team. Yes, I'm sure we all would love to believe that if the tables were reversed, and we were talking about McCain's guy, we'd be just as hard on him, but I seriously doubt the same people would be asking for the man's hide. JSE, you may not be a tax-evader, but before you consider yourself a model-citizen eagle Scout, consider that your apologist position on torture betrays you. I going to guess that you're a lot more like Cartman than you hoped.

[Mr Peabody]

Thought; for those of you who think it's alright for known violators to be in government positions and especially think because they done something wrong once don't mean they will do it again; why are we all judged by our credit reports? Why do sex offenders have to register? Why do those comvicted of felony lose so many privileges even after serving their time? These are things created by the government, those in charge. Seems they don't trust us any more than we trust them. Those mentioned in the beginning must think double standard is alright too.

Also, just for the record, the Bible does give authority for the government to punish and if they see fit for death, so be it. Re-read Romans 13:1-7 . While some are quick to point out flaws in those calling themselves "Christian", add to the list that some zero in on the word love and forgiveness but seem to put a blind eye on wrath, punishment and damnation etc. The word of God is complete, and it is written, not to take away or add to it. Take it or leave it but you can't go through it with white out creating your own version. Well, I guess you can if you want but the point is it won't do you any good. If religion is to remain out of this thread, please quit bringing it up because I can't help but to correct error.

[Auricauricle]

I will not discuss these matters until all reference to things religiousness, theology, etc. are removed from the dialog. These concepts are open to dispute and debate; the inclusion of unprovable "givens" quashes any chance that these discussions can proceed openly and in the spirit of rational and well-considered discourse. If you wanna talk about God , please do so in another forum. Again, we can talk about ethics all you like, for we can do so without all the attendant liturgical mumbo jumbo!

[bobsticks]

I will not discuss these matters until all reference to things religiousness, theology, etc. are removed from the dialog. These concepts are open to dispute and debate; the inclusion of unprovable "givens" quashes any chance that these discussions can proceed openly and in the spirit of rational and well-considered discourse. If you wanna talk about God , please do so in another forum. Again, we can talk about ethics all you like, for we can do so without all the attendant liturgical mumbo jumbo!

...which is fair enough after all. The discussion is based on the affairs of the U.S. Government which is supposed to be theology-free. This is becoming a garish pig of a thread...

5097

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

[nightflier]

Isn't that animal cruelty?

[JSE]

...you'd know that I said no. He shouldn't.

So why should we be so zealous to punish when we don't pursue torturers with the same zeal and excuse their actions as necessary evil.

Zealous the punish? Where the hell are you getting that from? I simply stated he has no business being Treasury Secretary. Quite twisting MY words.



Finally, I consider it hypocritical for anyone to point the finger at Geithner when we are all guilty of some transgression.

So let's just have anarchy because non one is perfect and guilty of some transgression. Sure, Billy murdered Bobby but hey I once punch a guy in the face for no reason so let's give Billy a pass. So by your logic, nobody should be accountable for anything since we have all done some wrong. Makes sense.:sosp:




Geithner gets the shaft because he's high-profile, a politician, a Democrat, and let's be honest, because he's part of Obama's team. Yes, I'm sure we all would love to believe that if the tables were reversed, and we were talking about McCain's guy, we'd be just as hard on him, but I seriously doubt the same people would be asking for the man's hide.


Actually, if McCain had won and appointed a tax evader, I would be all over him as well.




JSE, you may not be a tax-evader, but before you consider yourself a model-citizen eagle Scout, consider that your apologist position on torture betrays you. I going to guess that you're a lot more like Cartman than you hoped.

Never said I was a model citizen. Far from it, believe me. I guess you just pulling stuff out of you ass now to try and prove a point. So no, I am not a model citizen, but I am a realist that doesn't have my head stuck in some ideological mound of sand. I have done wrong in the past and have paid for it. I'm not saying Geithner should ne punished criminally. We don't know enough details. But, from what he himself has already admitted, he should not be Treasury Secretray. Even you agree with that.

[bobsticks]

Isn't that animal cruelty?

Perhaps another crimson Clupea pallasii to, yet again, divert the topic from the issue at hand.

I notice you still haven't addressed my previous suggestion that, according to your logic, we make a charter mamber of NAMBLA a Boy Scouts Troop Leader. Evidently this is an acceptable idea to you.

[Mr Peabody]

Auric, since hardly anything said on this thread can be proven I guess religion is on the table. I'll pray for you as I'm assuming you won't be back here.

[Feanor]

Thought; for those of you who think it's alright for known violators to be in government positions and especially think because they done something wrong once don't mean they will do it again; why are we all judged by our credit reports? Why do sex offenders have to register? Why do those comvicted of felony lose so many privileges even after serving their time? These are things created by the government, those in charge. Seems they don't trust us any more than we trust them. Those mentioned in the beginning must think double standard is alright too.
...

Basically I'm utilitarian when it comes to politics. Behaviors in personal life don't necessarily affect performace of a public office. Where they don't, they shouldn't prevent prevent a person from holding office, (assuming (s)he aren't in jail :biggrin5: ).

Why are we talking about felony? In the current debate how many of the polititians any been charged must less convicted? Fellatio isn't a crime, (neither is lying for that matter). Tax evasion is a crime, so where are the charges? Employee an illegal immigrant nanny isn't a crime, though certainly it ought to be.

[GMichael]

If we knew that someone was guilty of child molesting, would we put him in charge of our children?
If someone is a tax evader, should he be in charge of our money?

[Rich-n-Texas]

If we knew that someone was guilty of child molesting, would we put him in charge of our children?
No.

If someone is a tax evader, should he be in charge of our money?
No.

It's as simple as that. If an elected public official is caught getting a BJ in the Oval Office, he has violated not only the public trust, but his office. That's it. It's the law. He was Impeached for it. Why are there still people here arguing about it? How stupid is that?

[Feanor]

No.
..
It's as simple as that. If an elected public official is caught getting a BJ in the Oval Office, he has violated not only the public trust, but his office. That's it. It's the law. He was Impeached for it. Why are there still people here arguing about it? How stupid is that?

Clinton wasn't impeached for fellatio in the Oval Office; he was impeached for lying to Congress when questioned about -- get your facts straight.

[Rich-n-Texas]

He was Impeached for being morally corupt and abusing the office, like I already said idiot.

[GMichael]

You two play nice!

[Feanor]

He was Impeached for being morally corupt and abusing the office, like I already said idiot.
I still prefer to check the facts. Neither "moral corruption" nor abuse of power were part of the impeachment proceedings.

It seems in fact that the original charges were perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_impeachment). Moral corruption didn't figure at all, and the abuse of power charge was dropped before the actual impeachment proceedings.

[JSE]

I still prefer to check the facts. Neither "moral corruption" nor abuse of power were part of the impeachment proceedings.

It seems in fact that the original charges were perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_impeachment). Moral corruption didn't figure at all, and the abuse of power charge was dropped before the actual impeachment proceedings.



He was Impeached for being morally corupt and abusing the office, like I already said idiot.


I think your both right. Feanor cites the "technical/legal" reasons for impeachment while Rich is citing the underlying causes for the actions that led to Billy's impeachment.

Sound good?

[Ajani]

As much as I hate dragging out this Clinton discussion any further (as I've already done more than enough to drag it out): It comes down to this -

The President was not impeached for having sexual relations in the Oral office (that's not a crime)... The whole aim of that investigation was to embarrass him and probably force him to resign due to scandal...

He was impeached because he committed perjury by lying about the affair in 'court'...

His having an affair was not legal reason to remove him from office... Perjury on the other hand, could have been enough....

[Feanor]

I think your both right. Feanor cites the "technical/legal" reasons for impeachment while Rich is citing the underlying causes for the actions that led to Billy's impeachment.

Sound good?

The reason for his impeachment was Republican partisanship.

The reason for his acquittal was Democrat partisanship.

[Ajani]

The reason for his impeachment was Republican partisanship.

The reason for his acquittal was Democrat partisanship.

LOL... So true.... that hits the nail on the head... hopefully we can all leave it at that...

[Rich-n-Texas]

I still prefer to check the facts. Neither "moral corruption" nor abuse of power were part of the impeachment proceedings.

It seems in fact that the original charges were perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_impeachment). Moral corruption didn't figure at all, and the abuse of power charge was dropped before the actual impeachment proceedings.
idiot, you're splitting hairs. What was he lying about? Having oral sex with Monica Lewinsky. "The charges, perjury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury), obstruction of justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice), and abuse of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_of_power) arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal) and the Paula Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones) law suit."

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

Here're some names for you to Google. See what they all have in common:

Ron Brown
Vince Foster
C. Victor Raiser II
Hershel Friday
Ed Willey

Hint: They're all dead.

[Feanor]

idiot, you're splitting hairs.
...

Yes, and you'd make a poor lawyer.

[GMichael]

Poor rabbits.

[Ajani]

Here're some names for you to Google. See what they all have in common:

Ron Brown
Vince Foster
C. Victor Raiser II
Hershel Friday
Ed Willey

Hint: They're all dead.

Is Rich threatening to murder members of this forum? :shocked: :yikes: :shocked:

[Auricauricle]

You fool, AJ! I saved yer skinny ass yesterday from the vampires.....Whaddyou, a fool fer love? Stay away from these bloodsuckers!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Yes, and you'd make a poor lawyer.
And you make poor choices on the liberals you decide to align yourself with.

[Auricauricle]

Mebbe he just needs a good example set....C'mere, Fean. I know some good choices among the liberals....

[nightflier]

I notice you still haven't addressed my previous suggestion that, according to your logic, we make a charter mamber of NAMBLA a Boy Scouts Troop Leader. Evidently this is an acceptable idea to you.

No. Never. Provided the person in question is really a charter member of Nambla. Because of the socially disturbing connotations of this organization and its consequential secrecy, it's easy to accuse someone of being a "charter member" and equally difficult for someone falsely implicated to deny it. Are you? How would we know for sure? You do have some posts that might arouse suspicion. Anyhow, you can see where this leads.

And this hits at the heart of my objection to throwing Geithner out with the bathwater. None of us here knows how much a "criminal" he really is. But now that the tax-evasion scarlet letter has been pinned on his suit, he's as good as guilty. Why did he not step down when the other two did? Why did Obama not ask for his resignation? Maybe, just maybe, Geithner isn't the crook everybody wants him to be. Until there is more evidence about his "crime" we should be cautious of nailing him to the wall.

As I said before, the question is not as unclear with the members of the former administration who tortured. They bragged about it publicly. And what if, 3-4 years from now, Geithner is hailed as the savior of our economy? Will we still be demanding his resignation? Well JSE might, but I doubt many other people will.

[Sugar Beats]

Ah Boys, Can I just say One thing?

Thanks.

If you guys are going to debate issues then debate them. Can't you do so w/o all the mudslingin' & name callin'?

Tolerence is back in style these days in case you didn't know.

Tolerence means that I treat you with respect even when we totally disagree on a particular issue.


People are always bound to disagree, but we are going to tolerate each other...

Right?

Everyone is worthy of dignity.

Yes, even Feanor.

I'm totally kidding Feanor, btw.

So can ya'll agree on that?!!!

I'm outta here!

[JSE]

Ah Boys, Can I just say One thing?

Thanks.

If you guys are going to debate issues then debate them. Can't you do so w/o all the mudslingin' & name callin'?

Tolerence means that I treat you with respect even when we totally disagree on a particular issue.
Everyone is worthy of dignity.

Yes, even Feanor.

I'm totally kidding Feanor, btw.

So can ya'll agree on that?!!!

I'm outta here!


F*%# You! :dita:


I kid, I kid! :D

You gotta admit you kinda walked into one. :yesnod:

[Auricauricle]

S&$@, JoSiE! Watch yer f*%#in' language!

[GMichael]

How did I know that this would happen? It's like telling an upset woman to calm down. Never works.

[Auricauricle]

You'll learn, son....You'll learn....

[JSE]

How did I know that this would happen? It's like telling an upset woman to calm down. Never works.


You just call me a women?

Yeah, I got the skirt and all but................:biggrin5:

[Auricauricle]

I'd start callin' it a kilt, J.

[nightflier]

It's like telling an upset woman to calm down. Never works.

...doesn't this belong in that other thread?

[bobsticks]

No. Never. Provided the person in question is really a charter member of Nambla. Because of the socially disturbing connotations of this organization and its consequential secrecy, it's easy to accuse someone of being a "charter member" and equally difficult for someone falsely implicated to deny it. Are you? How would we know for sure? You do have some posts that might arouse suspicion. Anyhow, you can see where this leads.

And this hits at the heart of my objection to throwing Geithner out with the bathwater. None of us here knows how much a "criminal" he really is. But now that the tax-evasion scarlet letter has been pinned on his suit, he's as good as guilty. Why did he not step down when the other two did? Why did Obama not ask for his resignation? Maybe, just maybe, Geithner isn't the crook everybody wants him to be. Until there is more evidence about his "crime" we should be cautious of nailing him to the wall.

I would accept this train of thought if it had been only reported by the hacks, the nutjobs and Conservative Talk Radio pundits.The story has, however, been reported by ABC World News, The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly all of which are held to a higher standard of veracity. This isn't rumor or innuendo. Compliance with tax code on any given year is a binary state; you're either in compliance or you're not.

Further, it has been reported that the IRS has given Geithner leniency in the form of non-enforcement of penalties and fees for the infractions occuring in 2001 and 2002. This is not a courtesy given to the common man.

CNBC, on the morning of January 14th, showed the reminder notices the IMF sends out to all their employees, providing the wage information they need to pay their federal taxes and social security withholding.Even if we allow that a professional finance man can't be expected to know how to properly file his taxes there are things in place to prevent folks from straying too far from the pack.

The bottomline is that the guy didn't pay his taxes and there's no evidence to indicate that he wouyld've ever addressed the issue save for his nomination. I don't suspect that you or I would've been afforded the same luxury.




AsI said before, the question is not as unclear with the members of the former administration who tortured. They bragged about it publicly. And what if, 3-4 years from now, Geithner is hailed as the savior of our economy? Will we still be demanding his resignation? Well JSE might, but I doubt many other people will.

Why do you keep trying to prove, or at least imply, that two wrongs make a right?

[Rich-n-Texas]

If you guys are going to debate issues then debate them. Can't you do so w/o all the mudslingin' & name callin'?
Pix, Sir T. and flyboy taught me well (monkey see monkey do).

Tolerence means that I treat you with respect even when we totally disagree on a particular issue
Respect is earned.

People are always bound to disagree, but we are going to tolerate each other...

Right?
I don't tolerate arrogance...


Everyone is worthy of dignity.
You're entitled to your opinion.


So can ya'll agree on that?!!!
Probably not.


I'm outta here!
Where ya off to SB?

[GMichael]

Tisk tisk tisk....

[Sugar Beats]

Where ya off to SB?[/QUOTE]


Somewhere much more pleasant.. Dinner w/ Rob..

Continue on w/o me...

[Ajani]

I would accept this train of thought if it had been only reported by the hacks, the nutjobs and Conservative Talk Radio pundits.The story has, however, been reported by ABC World News, The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly all of which are held to a higher standard of veracity. This isn't rumor or innuendo. Compliance with tax code on any given year is a binary state; you're either in compliance or you're not.

Further, it has been reported that the IRS has given Geithner leniency in the form of non-enforcement of penalties and fees for the infractions occuring in 2001 and 2002. This is not a courtesy given to the common man.

CNBC, on the morning of January 14th, showed the reminder notices the IMF sends out to all their employees, providing the wage information they need to pay their federal taxes and social security withholding.Even if we allow that a professional finance man can't be expected to know how to properly file his taxes there are things in place to prevent folks from straying too far from the pack.

The bottomline is that the guy didn't pay his taxes and there's no evidence to indicate that he wouyld've ever addressed the issue save for his nomination. I don't suspect that you or I would've been afforded the same luxury.

Here's some info from Wiki (yes I know it's not a 100% reliable news source, but given how public this case was, I suspect it's acurate):



Tax problems

At the Senate confirmation hearings, it was revealed through documentary evidence that Geithner had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes for several years,[26] even though he had acknowledged his obligation to do so, and had filed a request for, and received, a payment for half the taxes owed. The failure to pay self-employment taxes was noted during a 2006 audit by the Internal Revenue Service, in which Geithner was assessed additional taxes of $14,847 for the 2003 and 2004 tax years. Geithner failed to pay, or to admit his failure to pay, the self-employment taxes for the 2001 and 2002 tax years until after President Obama expressed his intent to nominate Geithner to be Secretary of Treasury.[27] He also deducted the cost of his children's sleep-away camp as a dependent care expense, when only expenses for day care are eligible for the deduction.[28] Geithner subsequently paid the IRS the additional taxes owed,[29] and was charged interest of $15,000, but was not fined for late payment.[30] In addition, his housekeeper's work authorization lapsed during the last three months she worked for him.[31]

Geithner's employer at the time, the International Monetary Fund, gives its American employees the employer's half of the payroll taxes, expecting that the employees will deposit the money with the Internal Revenue Service.[32] The IMF does not withhold money for U.S. taxes, but it adds the approximate amount to the employee's pay. The employee should forward tax payments to the IRS, according to the papers released by the Senate. During his time with the IMF, Geithner was required to pay both Social Security and Medicare taxes for himself as both employer and employee. It appears that Geithner forwarded some tax payments but not others. For instance, he owed Social Security tax to the U.S. government. He did forward the employee portion to the IRS, but did not send the portion normally paid by the employer, although he was required to do so.

A report from the Senate Finance Committee documented Geithner's errors.[33] While working for IMF, Geithner signed a tax worksheet stating his "obligation of the U.S. Social Security tax, which I will pay on my fund income"[33] and another annual worksheet stating "I wish to apply for tax allowance of U.S. federal and state income taxes and the difference between the 'self-employed' and 'employed' obligation of the U.S. Social Security tax which I will pay on my Fund income."[34]

In a statement to the Senate panel considering his nomination, Geithner called the tax issues "careless", "avoidable", and "unintentional" errors, and he said he wanted to "apologize to the committee for putting you in the position of having to spend so much time on these issues."[29] Geithner testified that he used TurboTax to prepare his own return and that the tax errors are his own responsibility.[35] The Washington Post quoted a tax expert who said that TurboTax has not been programmed to handle self-employment taxes when the user identifies himself as being employed.[36] Geithner said at the hearing that he was always under the impression that he was an employee, not a self-employed contractor,[36] while he served as director of the Policy Development and Review Department of IMF.[9]

Full article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Geithner

I believe that Geithner's mess up with the taxes was an accident... he tried the easy route using turbo tax software instead of reading all the tax handouts supplied to him by the IMF... So he ended up paying some but not all the taxes he should have been paying...

HOWEVER, that does not explain why he still failed to pay the taxes after the IRS audited him in 2006 and found that he owed them $$$... Being lazy and messing up a tax form is understandable, but ignoring an assessment from the IRS for 2 - 3 years is a "tad" more difficult to understand...



Why do you keep trying to prove, or at least imply, that two wrongs make a right?

I don't think that's what he's saying.... I believe his issue Is just that it seems ridanculous that so many people will accept blatant immorality & criminality from Politicians in their own political party, but will want to throw the book at politicians from the other side, for even the most minor offenses...

It's just a shame to see so much blatantly partisan hypocrisy (note: I'm not referring to your posts)....

[JSE]

It's just a shame to see so much blatantly partisan hypocrisy (note: I'm not referring to your posts)....


How is it a matter of partisan hypocrisy to say Geithner should not be Treasury Secretary based on his IRS troubles? This is not a partisan issue, at least for me. He's not fit whether a Republican or Democrat appointed him. Simple as that.

But I guess because I can accept torture is "sometimes" a necessary evil in the world we live in today that makes my argument that Geithner should not be TS invalid. If that's the case, nobody should ever be accountable for any wrong doing ever again.

So because some poeple want to give Geithner a pass on this, shouldn't that mean those same people should give Bush a pass on the torture issue? We don't want them to be caught up in partisan hypocrisy do we? Both Bush and Geithner are/were wrong so they should both be accountable or not accountable right?

[Rich-n-Texas]

No such thing as a hypocritical liberal Cartman. Surely you knew that going in, right? :smilewinkgrin:

[Ajani]

How is it a matter of partisan hypocrisy to say Geithner should not be Treasury Secretary based on his IRS troubles? This is not a partisan issue, at least for me. He's not fit whether a Republican or Democrat appointed him. Simple as that.

I have no issue with saying that Geithner should not be Treasury Secretary... as I stated in the 1st part of my previous post:

I can understand him goofing the tax, but I can't understand why he didn't pay it after the IRS audited him in 2006... Unless he has a GREAT explanation for that, then I think he's unfit for the job...


But I guess because I can accept torture is "sometimes" a necessary evil in the world we live in today that makes my argument that Geithner should not be TS invalid. If that's the case, nobody should ever be accountable for any wrong doing ever again.

Nope... my issue is not about no-one being able to judge each other... it's about overlooking major crimes, while making a massive deal of minor ones.... It's like giving a rapist a full pardon, while wanting to lock up a jaywalker indefinitely... both should be punished... but if for some silly reason, one should be pardoned... I would expect it to be the Jaywalker...

Why I regard this as being partisan... is that I've heard every manner of condemnation thrown at Clinton and Geithner from some members of this forum and then a load of excuses to explain why Bush should not be punished for moral bankruptcy and gross incompetence... His team casually authorized both torture and indefinite imprisonment... both of which are major offenses that far outweigh getting BJs in the oval office and failure to pay taxes...

I also see partisan hypocrisy by other members who are totally willing to excuse Clinton and Geitner, as if they did nothing wrong...



So because some poeple want to give Geithner a pass on this, shouldn't that mean those same people should give Bush a pass on the torture issue? We don't want them to be caught up in partisan hypocrisy do we? Both Bush and Geithner are/were wrong so they should both be accountable or not accountable right?

Yes to your last question... they should both be accountable... no free passes on either torture, illegal imprisonment or tax evasion... but all 3 are not the same thing and the penalties for some should be greater than for the other...

[Ajani]

No such thing as a hypocritical liberal Cartman. Surely you knew that going in, right? :smilewinkgrin:

Of course there is such a thing... I even see some of them on this forum... but that is not an excuse for being a hypocritical conservative...

wrong is wrong, regardless of whether the offender is Liberal or Conservative...

[JSE]

Nope... my issue is not about no-one being able to judge each other... it's about overlooking major crimes, while making a massive deal of minor ones.... It's like giving a rapist a full pardon, while wanting to lock up a jaywalker indefinitely... both should be punished... but if for some silly reason, one should be pardoned... I would expect it to be the Jaywalker...

It's simply not as black & white as that. Different crimes, different scenrios, different morality standards, etc. My point is that you can't just overlook or not overlook one wrong because another lesser or greater unrelated wrong has been overlooked, or not overlooked. (wow, that sentence makes my head hurt :crazy: )



Why I regard this as being partisan... is that I've heard every manner of condemnation thrown at Clinton and Geithner from some members of this forum and then a load of excuses to explain why Bush should not be punished for moral bankruptcy and gross incompetence... His team casually authorized both torture and indefinite imprisonment... both of which are major offenses that far outweigh getting BJs in the oval office and failure to pay taxes...

Again seperate issues. For the record, I have never said Bush did no wrong or that he should not be held accountable for any wrong doings. If the evidence suggest he broke the law, so be it. I don't care what side of the political aisle a person is on.


Yes to your last question... they should both be accountable... no free passes on either torture, illegal imprisonment or tax evasion... but all 3 are not the same thing and the penalties for some should be greater than for the other...

Agreed. All 3 are not the same thing and completely independent of each other and should be judged as such. Ok, maybe 1 and 2 are similiar. :o

[Rich-n-Texas]

Nope... my issue is not about no-one being able to judge each other... it's about overlooking major crimes, while making a massive deal of minor ones.... It's like giving a rapist a full pardon, while wanting to lock up a jaywalker indefinitely... both should be punished... but if for some silly reason, one should be pardoned... I would expect it to be the Jaywalker...
If I see that ONE MORE TIME bonehead I'm gonna come out there and smack you! Okay? :incazzato:

Irregardless...


Yes to your last question... they should both be accountable... no free passes on either torture, illegal imprisonment or tax evasion... but all 3 are not the same thing and the penalties for some should be greater than for the other...
Glad you're finally starting to see things our way. :thumbsup:

[Ajani]

Glad you're finally starting to see things our way. :thumbsup:

Your way??? Dude, you dress up as Bush and have tea parties where you plot the destruction of the free world!!! I don't see things your way... Bush is a criminal along with the rest of them... and I still think his crimes are worse... the 2 democrats at best deserve to have lost their political offices and do some community service... Bush should be imprisoned in Guantanamo and tortured until Obama finally closes the facility!

[nightflier]

It's about overlooking major crimes, while making a massive deal of minor ones.... It's like giving a rapist a full pardon, while wanting to lock up a jaywalker indefinitely... both should be punished... but if for some silly reason, one should be pardoned... I would expect it to be the Jaywalker...

Or more specifically:

"It's about overlooking major crimes, while making a massive deal of minor ones.... It's like giving a torturer a full pardon, while wanting to lock up a tax-evader indefinitely... both should be punished... but if for some silly reason, one should be pardoned... we should expect it to be the tax-evader..."


Why do you keep trying to prove, or at least imply, that two wrongs make a right?

Sticks, I don't follow. Or does this have something to do with that poor pig?

[JSE]

Or more specifically:

"It's about overlooking major crimes, while making a massive deal of minor ones.... It's like giving a torturer a full pardon, while wanting to lock up a tax-evader indefinitely... both should be punished... but if for some silly reason, one should be pardoned... we should expect it to be the tax-evader..."


Glad you cleared that up.........................:skep: