Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Time to Reassess Bush

DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 9:40:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Several pollsters have conducted polls recently on the previous President, George W. Bush, and it appears that his numbers are about equal to Barack Obama's.

Fox news shows 49% have a favorable opinion whereas 47% do not with 3% undecided.

http://www.foxnews.com...

Before you shout "FAUX NOISE!" at me, please bare in mind that this is not the only poll to have found this trend:

"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that Bush's favorability ratings are slowly improving. Forty seven percent of Americans say they approve of his job performance and 50 percent disapprove. As his presidency ended in January 2009, 33 percent approved and 66 percent disapproved."

http://www.usnews.com...

This is not that far off from the Fox News poll.

So, now that we have had four years of Obama, what are your opinions on Bush? Personally, I think he was a horrible HORRIBLE President, though still better than Obama.
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:11:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I wouldn't say he was horrible. Being undecided on most foreign policy issues, I can't really get mad at him for this.

He really can't be blamed for the current debt, either, because the tax cuts are responsible for only 14% of the current debt and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had little overall effect on the current crisis.
http://blog.heritage.org...

I would also like to note Bush did inherit a mess. Bubbles with linkages to Carter, but the laws enforced by Clinton (Bush tried to push for their repeal--but the democrats blocked it) causing the 2008 crash. In 2000 he was left with the technology booms ending and leaving Bush with a mess, which, by the way, he fixed. There is actually a good analysis noting how Clintons economy was due to other factors (dot.com boom), and his tax increases hurt the economy, and Bush's tax cuts ended that recession.
http://www.heritage.org...

I think he could have done more. The cuts were poorly timed, meaning they could have had a larger effect. They should have been coupled with spending cuts etc.

But was Bush bad? No, but was good? I wouldn't say that either.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 9:40:13 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
Several pollsters have conducted polls recently on the previous President, George W. Bush, and it appears that his numbers are about equal to Barack Obama's.

Fox news shows 49% have a favorable opinion whereas 47% do not with 3% undecided.

http://www.foxnews.com...

Before you shout "FAUX NOISE!" at me, please bare in mind that this is not the only poll to have found this trend:

"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that Bush's favorability ratings are slowly improving. Forty seven percent of Americans say they approve of his job performance and 50 percent disapprove. As his presidency ended in January 2009, 33 percent approved and 66 percent disapproved."

http://www.usnews.com...

This is not that far off from the Fox News poll.

So, now that we have had four years of Obama, what are your opinions on Bush? Personally, I think he was a horrible HORRIBLE President, though still better than Obama.

I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree (though I grant the theoretical viability of his educational plan before NCLB; that of vouchers, albeit with some reservation), but Bush and I stand side by side in foreign policy. The method (invasion to restructure culture) may have been caviler (albeit with salutary effects), but the moral force of the intent of exporting democracy cannot be ignored. Indeed, it appeared that Katrina saw a less than adequate response, but the more broad point of that problem -like all other economic woes which happened to occur during the Bush years- can be more properly blamed on an incompetent, recalcitrant, damnably vain congress.
Tsar of DDO
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:18:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time, slightly above Obama, because Obama simply continued and expanded the shitty policies of the former's administration.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:19:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM, YYW wrote:
I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree

Wouldn't it be great if incompetent gang leaders like Bush had no power over the lives of millions? Google: Voluntaryism.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:23:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would add that Bush's wholesale condemnation following 2008 was (1) promulgated by a biased media -including Fox News, (2) the result of a popular adaption of a hierarchal model of accountability (that is to say, it was unfair and myopic to center the majority of the blame at the guy who appeared to be at the top, despite the fact that the lack of regulation which caused the 2008 crisis was facilitated by congress, and only by congress)-which is reflective only of the patent stupidity of the American people and (3) the result of popular weakness, and therefore unwillingness to see the ideal through to the end (we failed in Iraq for the same reason we failed in Vietnam; people saw and got tired of seeing the seeming horror of war, because they forgot the importance and necessity of the reason for the war). I know these are contentious claims, and I'm sure that as contentious as these claims are, it is even odder to see a Liberal coming to Bush's defense -but relative to the Republicans now, Bush was not only moderate, but reasonable and pragmatic.
Tsar of DDO
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:24:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:40:13 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
Several pollsters have conducted polls recently on the previous President, George W. Bush, and it appears that his numbers are about equal to Barack Obama's.

Fox news shows 49% have a favorable opinion whereas 47% do not with 3% undecided.

http://www.foxnews.com...

Before you shout "FAUX NOISE!" at me, please bare in mind that this is not the only poll to have found this trend:

"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that Bush's favorability ratings are slowly improving. Forty seven percent of Americans say they approve of his job performance and 50 percent disapprove. As his presidency ended in January 2009, 33 percent approved and 66 percent disapproved."

http://www.usnews.com...

This is not that far off from the Fox News poll.

So, now that we have had four years of Obama, what are your opinions on Bush? Personally, I think he was a horrible HORRIBLE President, though still better than Obama.

I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree (though I grant the theoretical viability of his educational plan before NCLB; that of vouchers, albeit with some reservation), but Bush and I stand side by side in foreign policy. The method (invasion to restructure culture) may have been caviler (albeit with salutary effects), but the moral force of the intent of exporting democracy cannot be ignored. Indeed, it appeared that Katrina saw a less than adequate response, but the more broad point of that problem -like all other economic woes which happened to occur during the Bush years- can be more properly blamed on an incompetent, recalcitrant, damnably vain congress.

Bush was one of the best presidents ever elected, remember?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:25:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:40:13 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
Several pollsters have conducted polls recently on the previous President, George W. Bush, and it appears that his numbers are about equal to Barack Obama's.

Fox news shows 49% have a favorable opinion whereas 47% do not with 3% undecided.

http://www.foxnews.com...

Before you shout "FAUX NOISE!" at me, please bare in mind that this is not the only poll to have found this trend:

"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that Bush's favorability ratings are slowly improving. Forty seven percent of Americans say they approve of his job performance and 50 percent disapprove. As his presidency ended in January 2009, 33 percent approved and 66 percent disapproved."

http://www.usnews.com...

This is not that far off from the Fox News poll.

So, now that we have had four years of Obama, what are your opinions on Bush? Personally, I think he was a horrible HORRIBLE President, though still better than Obama.

I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree (though I grant the theoretical viability of his educational plan before NCLB; that of vouchers, albeit with some reservation), but Bush and I stand side by side in foreign policy. The method (invasion to restructure culture) may have been caviler (albeit with salutary effects), but the moral force of the intent of exporting democracy cannot be ignored. Indeed, it appeared that Katrina saw a less than adequate response, but the more broad point of that problem -like all other economic woes which happened to occur during the Bush years- can be more properly blamed on an incompetent, recalcitrant, damnably vain congress.

Exporting democracy hah I'll debate you on that any day, our foreign policy doesn't give a sht about exporting neither freedom nor democracy.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:26:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:18:51 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time, slightly above Obama, because Obama simply continued and expanded the shitty policies of the former's administration.

Obama is what any reasonable president is: a man who reconciled his political ambitions with the shitty hand he was dealt.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:26:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:25:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:40:13 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
Several pollsters have conducted polls recently on the previous President, George W. Bush, and it appears that his numbers are about equal to Barack Obama's.

Fox news shows 49% have a favorable opinion whereas 47% do not with 3% undecided.

http://www.foxnews.com...

Before you shout "FAUX NOISE!" at me, please bare in mind that this is not the only poll to have found this trend:

"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that Bush's favorability ratings are slowly improving. Forty seven percent of Americans say they approve of his job performance and 50 percent disapprove. As his presidency ended in January 2009, 33 percent approved and 66 percent disapproved."

http://www.usnews.com...

This is not that far off from the Fox News poll.

So, now that we have had four years of Obama, what are your opinions on Bush? Personally, I think he was a horrible HORRIBLE President, though still better than Obama.

I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree (though I grant the theoretical viability of his educational plan before NCLB; that of vouchers, albeit with some reservation), but Bush and I stand side by side in foreign policy. The method (invasion to restructure culture) may have been caviler (albeit with salutary effects), but the moral force of the intent of exporting democracy cannot be ignored. Indeed, it appeared that Katrina saw a less than adequate response, but the more broad point of that problem -like all other economic woes which happened to occur during the Bush years- can be more properly blamed on an incompetent, recalcitrant, damnably vain congress.

Exporting democracy hah I'll debate you on that any day, our foreign policy doesn't give a sht about exporting neither freedom nor democracy.

There is exceptional irony in you making that claim to me.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:27:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:24:29 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:40:13 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
Several pollsters have conducted polls recently on the previous President, George W. Bush, and it appears that his numbers are about equal to Barack Obama's.

Fox news shows 49% have a favorable opinion whereas 47% do not with 3% undecided.

http://www.foxnews.com...

Before you shout "FAUX NOISE!" at me, please bare in mind that this is not the only poll to have found this trend:

"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that Bush's favorability ratings are slowly improving. Forty seven percent of Americans say they approve of his job performance and 50 percent disapprove. As his presidency ended in January 2009, 33 percent approved and 66 percent disapproved."

http://www.usnews.com...

This is not that far off from the Fox News poll.

So, now that we have had four years of Obama, what are your opinions on Bush? Personally, I think he was a horrible HORRIBLE President, though still better than Obama.

I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree (though I grant the theoretical viability of his educational plan before NCLB; that of vouchers, albeit with some reservation), but Bush and I stand side by side in foreign policy. The method (invasion to restructure culture) may have been caviler (albeit with salutary effects), but the moral force of the intent of exporting democracy cannot be ignored. Indeed, it appeared that Katrina saw a less than adequate response, but the more broad point of that problem -like all other economic woes which happened to occur during the Bush years- can be more properly blamed on an incompetent, recalcitrant, damnably vain congress.

Bush was one of the best presidents ever elected*, remember?

*haha. He was elected the second time.
Tsar of DDO
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:28:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:26:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:25:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 9:40:13 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
Several pollsters have conducted polls recently on the previous President, George W. Bush, and it appears that his numbers are about equal to Barack Obama's.

Fox news shows 49% have a favorable opinion whereas 47% do not with 3% undecided.

http://www.foxnews.com...

Before you shout "FAUX NOISE!" at me, please bare in mind that this is not the only poll to have found this trend:

"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that Bush's favorability ratings are slowly improving. Forty seven percent of Americans say they approve of his job performance and 50 percent disapprove. As his presidency ended in January 2009, 33 percent approved and 66 percent disapproved."

http://www.usnews.com...

This is not that far off from the Fox News poll.

So, now that we have had four years of Obama, what are your opinions on Bush? Personally, I think he was a horrible HORRIBLE President, though still better than Obama.

I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree (though I grant the theoretical viability of his educational plan before NCLB; that of vouchers, albeit with some reservation), but Bush and I stand side by side in foreign policy. The method (invasion to restructure culture) may have been caviler (albeit with salutary effects), but the moral force of the intent of exporting democracy cannot be ignored. Indeed, it appeared that Katrina saw a less than adequate response, but the more broad point of that problem -like all other economic woes which happened to occur during the Bush years- can be more properly blamed on an incompetent, recalcitrant, damnably vain congress.

Exporting democracy hah I'll debate you on that any day, our foreign policy doesn't give a sht about exporting neither freedom nor democracy.

There is exceptional irony in you making that claim to me.

If there is it escapes me, unless you're entire post is sarcastic and I missed it.
If its not I'll gladly debate you on the subject.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:31:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Exporting democracy" was not was Bush was doing and is a terrible foreign policy. The aim should have been to maintain the balance of power in the Middle East, not give Iran a free hand in Baghdad. Although you couldn't say the invasion wasn't unjustified...
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:35:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:19:57 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM, YYW wrote:
I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree

Wouldn't it be great if incompetent gang leaders like Bush had no power over the lives of millions? Google: Voluntaryism.

Here, I'll proffer a bold, emotionally charged question too:

Wouldn't it be great if every American had the intellectual ability and moral integrity to recognize the global indispensability of American political/economic/military preeminence, rather than having myopically ignorant, jaded, weak conceptions based on equally myopic, ignorant and weak value structures?

How I love the libertarian argument against military projection... "We shouldn't have to defend the world! The world should have to defend itself!" Indeed, if we don't... they surely will! That's precisely the problem! Only where the United States continues towards the pursuit of a monopoly of global force will there be peace in the world. That's the dark side of peace through strength... it requires being might great to the extent that it is beyond challenge.

But seriously though WSA, I understand that it's hard to understand why the US is and ought to remain, as Hillary Clinton put it, "the indispensable nation." It rather requires a degree in political science, coupled with a keen understanding of human nature, working in tandem with an ideal predicated on the pursuit and enforcement of global moral good.

W was the man.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:36:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:31:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
"Exporting democracy" was not was Bush was doing and is a terrible foreign policy. The aim should have been to maintain the balance of power in the Middle East, not give Iran a free hand in Baghdad.* Although you couldn't say the invasion wasn't unjustified...

*Iran's increased regional prominence is directly causally linked to our withdrawing from Iraq.
Tsar of DDO
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:40:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:36:50 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:31:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
"Exporting democracy" was not was Bush was doing and is a terrible foreign policy. The aim should have been to maintain the balance of power in the Middle East, not give Iran a free hand in Baghdad.* Although you couldn't say the invasion wasn't unjustified...

*Iran's increased regional prominence is directly causally linked to our withdrawing from Iraq.

Precisely why we kept them there for so long. And we couldn't do it forever. Bush needed to maintain the balance of power in the region. That's not to say the invasion of Iraq was a total mistake- it wasn't even entirely his decision.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:44:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM, YYW wrote:

I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree (though I grant the theoretical viability of his educational plan before NCLB; that of vouchers, albeit with some reservation), but Bush and I stand side by side in foreign policy. The method (invasion to restructure culture) may have been caviler (albeit with salutary effects), but the moral force of the intent of exporting democracy cannot be ignored.

.............................................................

Indeed, it appeared that Katrina saw a less than adequate response, but the more broad point of that problem -like all other economic woes which happened to occur during the Bush years- can be more properly blamed on an incompetent, recalcitrant, damnably vain congress.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:45:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:40:24 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:36:50 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:31:32 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
"Exporting democracy" was not was Bush was doing and is a terrible foreign policy. The aim should have been to maintain the balance of power in the Middle East, not give Iran a free hand in Baghdad.* Although you couldn't say the invasion wasn't unjustified...

*Iran's increased regional prominence is directly causally linked to our withdrawing from Iraq.

Precisely why we kept them there for so long. And we couldn't do it forever. Bush needed to maintain the balance of power in the region. That's not to say the invasion of Iraq was a total mistake- it wasn't even entirely his decision.

It is a fair point to say that Bush was not the architect of the plan to invade Iraq, he nevertheless deserves praise because he recognized the necessity of doing so, did, and saw it through to the extent he was able. In terms of managing Iraq though, he should have rallied more support from Europe, persuaded Russia to come to US aid (as in, waged a joint venture) and should have recognized the dangers of (and revoked the possibility of) contracting with Blackwater.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:47:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:44:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM, YYW wrote:

I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree (though I grant the theoretical viability of his educational plan before NCLB; that of vouchers, albeit with some reservation), but Bush and I stand side by side in foreign policy. The method (invasion to restructure culture) may have been caviler (albeit with salutary effects), but the moral force of the intent of exporting democracy cannot be ignored.

.............................................................

Indeed, it appeared that Katrina saw a less than adequate response, but the more broad point of that problem -like all other economic woes which happened to occur during the Bush years- can be more properly blamed on an incompetent, recalcitrant, damnably vain congress.

Feel free to counter me on this point. Anyone.
Tsar of DDO
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:50:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:47:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:44:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM, YYW wrote:

I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree (though I grant the theoretical viability of his educational plan before NCLB; that of vouchers, albeit with some reservation), but Bush and I stand side by side in foreign policy. The method (invasion to restructure culture) may have been caviler (albeit with salutary effects), but the moral force of the intent of exporting democracy cannot be ignored.

.............................................................

Indeed, it appeared that Katrina saw a less than adequate response, but the more broad point of that problem -like all other economic woes which happened to occur during the Bush years- can be more properly blamed on an incompetent, recalcitrant, damnably vain congress.

Feel free to counter me on this point. Anyone.

I'll do you one better, let's debate it.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:53:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:50:17 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:47:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:44:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM, YYW wrote:

I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree (though I grant the theoretical viability of his educational plan before NCLB; that of vouchers, albeit with some reservation), but Bush and I stand side by side in foreign policy. The method (invasion to restructure culture) may have been caviler (albeit with salutary effects), but the moral force of the intent of exporting democracy cannot be ignored.

.............................................................

Indeed, it appeared that Katrina saw a less than adequate response, but the more broad point of that problem -like all other economic woes which happened to occur during the Bush years- can be more properly blamed on an incompetent, recalcitrant, damnably vain congress.

Feel free to counter me on this point. Anyone.

I'll do you one better, let's debate it.

Go ahead, make your argument. I'll refute it in this thread because (1) I want indefinite character space, because (2) I know there are misconceptions about Iraq that will require a great deal of writing to address and (3) I want you to be able to ask questions where you don't understand/I don't want there to be any misconception about what I'm saying or what the meaning of what I say is.
Tsar of DDO
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:55:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:35:07 PM, YYW wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if every American had the intellectual ability and moral integrity to recognize the global indispensability of American political/economic/military preeminence, rather than having myopically ignorant, jaded, weak conceptions based on equally myopic, ignorant and weak value structures?

Please tell me the kind of moral integrity required to kill over 1,000,000 in the Middle East since the 90's while funding it through extortion and supporting it through propaganda. You're clearly a more evolved primate than I, so enlighten me.

How I love the libertarian argument against military projection... "We shouldn't have to defend the world! The world should have to defend itself!" Indeed, if we don't... they surely will! That's precisely the problem! Only where the United States continues towards the pursuit of a monopoly of global force will there be peace in the world. That's the dark side of peace through strength... it requires being might great to the extent that it is beyond challenge.

Since monopolies on force don't work well on the national level, what makes you think they'll work well on a global level?

But seriously though WSA, I understand that it's hard to understand why the US is and ought to remain, as Hillary Clinton put it, "the indispensable nation." It rather requires a degree in political science, coupled with a keen understanding of human nature, working in tandem with an ideal predicated on the pursuit and enforcement of global moral good.

Assuming you're being serious here, what about US military interventionism facilitates global peace? The research we have demonstrates the opposite is true, "Whether U.S. military intervention causes retaliatory terrorist attacks is a contentious issue. This study first conceptualizes the U.S. military intervention-terrorism connection, and then performs empirical tests. A cross-national, time-series analysis of 166 countries during the period from 1970 to 2005 shows that the overall effect of U.S. military intervention on terrorism is detrimental, fueling more terrorist incidents if not more terrorist casualties. However, this finding varies depending on the type of intervention mission. Terrorist pursuit interventions successfully deter terrorism, but other intervention missions, such as those that neutralize domestic disputes, facilitate regime change, and offer humanitarian aid, backfire. These findings indicate that the U.S. should be more cautious of the use of the military since it inflames terrorism except for those instances in which combating terrorism is set as a central goal." http://papers.ssrn.com...

Besides Islam being a violent religion per se, where does the rest of that terrorism come from in the first place? One option is to blame it on arbitrary nouns like "freedom" which the US is notoriously and precipitously losing, the other option is to accept the statistical and logical arguments that terrorizing, controlling, and murdering people causes them to resist and despise you. Here's an argument for blowback: http://www.thenation.com...# Here's what a century of interventionism looks like: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...

W was the man.

Assuming you're being serious here as well, you have the right to like his personality or ideas, but you do not have the right to delegate to him to rule over people with violence.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
thett3
Posts: 14,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 10:58:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think Bush is a genuinely good man, just a fool and a poor president. I'm undecided whether he or Obama is worse
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:04:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:58:24 PM, thett3 wrote:
I think Bush is a genuinely good man, just a fool and a poor president. I'm undecided whether he or Obama is worse

That
Bush was like a kid who wasn't fully aware of the gravity of his decisions, when that iraqi reporter threw the shoe at him, he had the biggest grin on his face, like he was just excited to see some action.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:23:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:55:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:35:07 PM, YYW wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if every American had the intellectual ability and moral integrity to recognize the global indispensability of American political/economic/military preeminence, rather than having myopically ignorant, jaded, weak conceptions based on equally myopic, ignorant and weak value structures?

Please tell me the kind of moral integrity required to kill over 1,000,000 in the Middle East since the 90's while funding it through extortion and supporting it through propaganda. You're clearly a more evolved primate than I, so enlighten me.

The end is to facilitate democratic development. That wasn't the end until W invaded Iraq. The means is a foreign imposed regime change, which is the poli-sci way of saying bringing about just (as in, democratically elected) government by means of force. The problem is that doing so (1) required overthrowing an existing power structure which (2) was met with considerable resistance by that power structure and ultimately that (3) in order to be successful, a culture would have to be changed. Yes, innocent people were killed and it would be abhorrent not to acknowledge the horror of the loss of innocent life. That said, the end remains the facilitation of democratic development. Because of (3), (1) was only the beginning and (2) became the force hindering the accomplishment of (3). Over time (it would have taken a generation, at minimum), success could have been witnessed. The problem with the strategy was that it expected results too soon. Just as Rome was not built in a day, Baghdad could not be rebuilt in a night.

How I love the libertarian argument against military projection... "We shouldn't have to defend the world! The world should have to defend itself!" Indeed, if we don't... they surely will! That's precisely the problem! Only where the United States continues towards the pursuit of a monopoly of global force will there be peace in the world. That's the dark side of peace through strength... it requires being might great to the extent that it is beyond challenge.

Since monopolies on force don't work well on the national level, what makes you think they'll work well on a global level?

So, you aren't understanding what "monopoly of force" means. All it means is that there is a body with enforcement power that holds people to the standards established by the rule of law, because force is the means of maintaining social order. That is not to say that the state is constantly oppressing its subjects, but rather that the state has exclusive enforcement power. On a global level, this means that the United States would hold the world to our constitutional standards.

But seriously though WSA, I understand that it's hard to understand why the US is and ought to remain, as Hillary Clinton put it, "the indispensable nation." It rather requires a degree in political science, coupled with a keen understanding of human nature, working in tandem with an ideal predicated on the pursuit and enforcement of global moral good.

Assuming you're being serious here, what about US military interventionism facilitates global peace? The research we have demonstrates the opposite is true, "Whether U.S. military intervention causes retaliatory terrorist attacks is a contentious issue. This study first conceptualizes the U.S. military intervention-terrorism connection, and then performs empirical tests. A cross-national, time-series analysis of 166 countries during the period from 1970 to 2005 shows that the overall effect of U.S. military intervention on terrorism is detrimental, fueling more terrorist incidents if not more terrorist casualties. However, this finding varies depending on the type of intervention mission. Terrorist pursuit interventions successfully deter terrorism, but other intervention missions, such as those that neutralize domestic disputes, facilitate regime change, and offer humanitarian aid, backfire. These findings indicate that the U.S. should be more cautious of the use of the military since it inflames terrorism except for those instances in which combating terrorism is set as a central goal." http://papers.ssrn.com...

That intervention is met with asymmetric resistance does not mean that non-intervention will not be met with asymmetric resistance. I've read the paper, WSA. It made huge waves in the poli-sci -specifically the IR- community (and so have others like it). It's findings that in countries where the United States has intervened, backlash has occurred is insufficient to indicate that if the US had not intervened militarily, the threat posed to the United States and its allies would be in any way diminished.

Besides Islam being a violent religion per se, where does the rest of that terrorism come from in the first place? One option is to blame it on arbitrary nouns like "freedom" which the US is notoriously and precipitously losing, the other option is to accept the statistical and logical arguments that terrorizing, controlling, and murdering people causes them to resist and despise you. Here's an argument for blowback: http://www.thenation.com...# Here's what a century of interventionism looks like: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Not really. What causes terrorism is a politically contentious issues, but among the commonly charted factors:

Terrorists tend to be muslim males from severely economically depressed regions aged 15-35 who lack a sense of sociopolitical agency, which is to say that they are both unsatisfied with their lives and feel powerless to affect their lives for the better. Terrorist cells/networks tend to be composed of and financed by individuals with political and religious grievances against the West. Terrorists networks use boys/men who fit the profile above as means of asymmetric warfare, which is to say that they target world powers in the only way they can: by targeting civilians. Terrorists who attack the US are made to believe that the United States generally is the cause of their particular problems and therefore believe that the United States people are justifiable targets. The problem with the argument that US intervention causes terrorism is that it assumes that in the absence of US intervention, terrorist networks would not be able to convince socioeconomically disenfranchised males to see America as the cause of their plight -which is both theoretically and demonstrably absurd. Moreover, by disrupting and dismantling terrorist cells the United States is able to address the actual cause of terrorism (terrorist cells/networks) rather than ignoring them, as would be suggested by the paper you cited. The reason for democratic restructuring, however, is even deeper. By creating the type of political climate where free people have the opportunity to advance themselves, the reason that terrorists are recruitable in the first place is evaporated -which would necessarily take place so long as the economic trend of globalization continues, and conditions are such that a region is conducive to economic development from world investment.

W was the man.

Assuming you're being serious here as well, you have the right to like his personality or ideas, but you do not have the right to delegate to him to rule over people with violence.

That's not what I'm saying at all.
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 11:46:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 10:47:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:44:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM, YYW wrote:

I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree (though I grant the theoretical viability of his educational plan before NCLB; that of vouchers, albeit with some reservation), but Bush and I stand side by side in foreign policy. The method (invasion to restructure culture) may have been caviler (albeit with salutary effects), but the moral force of the intent of exporting democracy cannot be ignored.

.............................................................

Indeed, it appeared that Katrina saw a less than adequate response, but the more broad point of that problem -like all other economic woes which happened to occur during the Bush years- can be more properly blamed on an incompetent, recalcitrant, damnably vain congress.

Feel free to counter me on this point. Anyone.

I would argue that on three points.

1: Democracy in and of itself is a horrible form of government. I don't know if this is just semantics, but if we are talking about implementing a stable system, we should be talking about a republic with a division of powers and a system of checks and balances. Especially when we plan to implement it in an area made fragile by an intricate crazing of demographic and sectarian divides. Democracy tends to implode in such situations.

2: Even if it was ideal, what form of government will succeed in any given cultural and geopolitical climate is highly dependent upon many conditions. There is by no means a uniform solution which can be stamped onto any culture we please. Self-rule can fail, and it can do so spectacularly, and even if it survives it isn't guaranteed to align with our interests as a nation.

3: The power projection which you've been supporting is possible. But it will not be accomplished by trying to turn the Middle East into a beacon of Western values, especially if we maintain the borders instated following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, which are quite stupidly drawn. It would be accomplished through actual annexation of territories. The effective implementation of this requires a degree of brutality which the American people aren't willing to stomach, and doing things halfway is worse than not interfering at all. The balancing act that we engage in when our hands are tied in order to maintain American interests in the region routinely leads us to support horrible regimes, including Mubarak, the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Musharraf, the Taliban, and Suharto. The evils perpetrated by these regimes far exceeds any which would have been committed under true American imperialism, while in the end being completely counterproductive if our goal is the spread of Western values. I would say that if we don't plan on doing things right, then we ought not to do them at all.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:01:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:23:28 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:55:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:35:07 PM, YYW wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if every American had the intellectual ability and moral integrity to recognize the global indispensability of American political/economic/military preeminence, rather than having myopically ignorant, jaded, weak conceptions based on equally myopic, ignorant and weak value structures?

Please tell me the kind of moral integrity required to kill over 1,000,000 in the Middle East since the 90's while funding it through extortion and supporting it through propaganda. You're clearly a more evolved primate than I, so enlighten me.

The end is to facilitate democratic development. That wasn't the end until W invaded Iraq. The means is a foreign imposed regime change, which is the poli-sci way of saying bringing about just (as in, democratically elected) government by means of force. The problem is that doing so (1) required overthrowing an existing power structure which (2) was met with considerable resistance by that power structure and ultimately that (3) in order to be successful, a culture would have to be changed. Yes, innocent people were killed and it would be abhorrent not to acknowledge the horror of the loss of innocent life. That said, the end remains the facilitation of democratic development. Because of (3), (1) was only the beginning and (2) became the force hindering the accomplishment of (3). Over time (it would have taken a generation, at minimum), success could have been witnessed. The problem with the strategy was that it expected results too soon. Just as Rome was not built in a day, Baghdad could not be rebuilt in a night.

How I love the libertarian argument against military projection... "We shouldn't have to defend the world! The world should have to defend itself!" Indeed, if we don't... they surely will! That's precisely the problem! Only where the United States continues towards the pursuit of a monopoly of global force will there be peace in the world. That's the dark side of peace through strength... it requires being might great to the extent that it is beyond challenge.

Since monopolies on force don't work well on the national level, what makes you think they'll work well on a global level?

So, you aren't understanding what "monopoly of force" means. All it means is that there is a body with enforcement power that holds people to the standards established by the rule of law, because force is the means of maintaining social order. That is not to say that the state is constantly oppressing its subjects, but rather that the state has exclusive enforcement power. On a global level, this means that the United States would hold the world to our constitutional standards.

But seriously though WSA, I understand that it's hard to understand why the US is and ought to remain, as Hillary Clinton put it, "the indispensable nation." It rather requires a degree in political science, coupled with a keen understanding of human nature, working in tandem with an ideal predicated on the pursuit and enforcement of global moral good.

Assuming you're being serious here, what about US military interventionism facilitates global peace? The research we have demonstrates the opposite is true, "Whether U.S. military intervention causes retaliatory terrorist attacks is a contentious issue. This study first conceptualizes the U.S. military intervention-terrorism connection, and then performs empirical tests. A cross-national, time-series analysis of 166 countries during the period from 1970 to 2005 shows that the overall effect of U.S. military intervention on terrorism is detrimental, fueling more terrorist incidents if not more terrorist casualties. However, this finding varies depending on the type of intervention mission. Terrorist pursuit interventions successfully deter terrorism, but other intervention missions, such as those that neutralize domestic disputes, facilitate regime change, and offer humanitarian aid, backfire. These findings indicate that the U.S. should be more cautious of the use of the military since it inflames terrorism except for those instances in which combating terrorism is set as a central goal." http://papers.ssrn.com...

That intervention is met with asymmetric resistance does not mean that non-intervention will not be met with asymmetric resistance. I've read the paper, WSA. It made huge waves in the poli-sci -specifically the IR- community (and so have others like it). It's findings that in countries where the United States has intervened, backlash has occurred is insufficient to indicate that if the US had not intervened militarily, the threat posed to the United States and its allies would be in any way diminished.

Besides Islam being a violent religion per se, where does the rest of that terrorism come from in the first place? One option is to blame it on arbitrary nouns like "freedom" which the US is notoriously and precipitously losing, the other option is to accept the statistical and logical arguments that terrorizing, controlling, and murdering people causes them to resist and despise you. Here's an argument for blowback: http://www.thenation.com...# Here's what a century of interventionism looks like: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Not really. What causes terrorism is a politically contentious issues, but among the commonly charted factors:

Terrorists tend to be muslim males from severely economically depressed regions aged 15-35 who lack a sense of sociopolitical agency, which is to say that they are both unsatisfied with their lives and feel powerless to affect their lives for the better. Terrorist cells/networks tend to be composed of and financed by individuals with political and religious grievances against the West. Terrorists networks use boys/men who fit the profile above as means of asymmetric warfare, which is to say that they target world powers in the only way they can: by targeting civilians. Terrorists who attack the US are made to believe that the United States generally is the cause of their particular problems and therefore believe that the United States people are justifiable targets. The problem with the argument that US intervention causes terrorism is that it assumes that in the absence of US intervention, terrorist networks would not be able to convince socioeconomically disenfranchised males to see America as the cause of their plight -which is both theoretically and demonstrably absurd. Moreover, by disrupting and dismantling terrorist cells the United States is able to address the actual cause of terrorism (terrorist cells/networks) rather than ignoring them, as would be suggested by the paper you cited. The reason for democratic restructuring, however, is even deeper. By creating the type of political climate where free people have the opportunity to advance themselves, the reason that terrorists are recruitable in the first place is evaporated -which would necessarily take place so long as the economic trend of globalization continues, and conditions are such that a region is conducive to economic development from world investment.

W was the man.

Assuming you're being serious here as well, you have the right to like his personality or ideas, but you do not have the right to delegate to him to rule over people with violence.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Brilliant libertarian thrashing, YYW.

WSA, I would be happy to debate any of this.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:05:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let's reassess Bush.

He ran up the national debt, engaged in a regressive crony capitalism, expanded the regulatory state at a reasonably fast pace, brought us into two wars that achieved virtually nothing, expanded executive power greatly, and invaded our private lives.

Looks like we did reassess him and he was awful.

To be fair, Obama has been as bad or worse on every aspect.

I am tired of these bipartisan statists ruining our lives and stealing our freedoms.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:11:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/24/2013 11:46:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:47:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:44:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/24/2013 10:16:04 PM, YYW wrote:

I think his social views were abhorrent, to a considerable degree (though I grant the theoretical viability of his educational plan before NCLB; that of vouchers, albeit with some reservation), but Bush and I stand side by side in foreign policy. The method (invasion to restructure culture) may have been caviler (albeit with salutary effects), but the moral force of the intent of exporting democracy cannot be ignored.

.............................................................

Indeed, it appeared that Katrina saw a less than adequate response, but the more broad point of that problem -like all other economic woes which happened to occur during the Bush years- can be more properly blamed on an incompetent, recalcitrant, damnably vain congress.

Feel free to counter me on this point. Anyone.

I would argue that on three points.

1: Democracy in and of itself is a horrible form of government.

Plato would agree. I like the Republic as much as the next guy, and agree that it's probably the most pragmatic form of government, but to call it (or any other) theoretically or practically better than democracy is entirely too bold on either respective level. I would counter that where people are properly invested in shared political outcomes, and vote on a basis of good values, democracy is the best form of government.

I don't know if this is just semantics, but if we are talking about implementing a stable system, we should be talking about a republic with a division of powers and a system of checks and balances.

So, I wasn't clear. When I say "democracy" I mean, institute a form of government in the image a of western liberal-democratic model, with constitutional standards, and a functioning rule of law. I know there is a bit of semantic imperialism with that term (insomuch as I am attributing to 'democracy' something other than popular rule), but the point remains.

Especially when we plan to implement it in an area made fragile by an intricate crazing of demographic and sectarian divides. Democracy tends to implode in such situations.

Not really. Democracies are pretty resilient, even when voters are stupid and everything seems to be running against them. But no form of government ought to be criticized on the basis of it's instability, because to the extent that people have rights, the government is necessarily subject to instability. However, democracy seems uniquely situated to arrive at a suitable balance for a given body politic.

2: Even if it was ideal, what form of government will succeed in any given cultural and geopolitical climate is highly dependent upon many conditions. There is by no means a uniform solution which can be stamped onto any culture we please. Self-rule can fail, and it can do so spectacularly, and even if it survives it isn't guaranteed to align with our interests as a nation.

Different cultures do have different value structures and different ideals. People are also resistant to change in any form. It is the case that what I am proposing does both require cultural change and is likely at odds with existent value structures. Change, therefore, should be expected to be hard -but that change is hard does not mean that it should not be pursued if we agree that the ruled ought only be the ones who decide who rule. I know there is a bit of contradiction (in that I'm championing an entirely undemocratic means of facilitating democratic development), but where a existent culture/power structure denies even the prospect democratic development, external force is the only mechanism by which democratic government government may emerge because people must know freedom before they can believe in its potentiality.

3: The power projection which you've been supporting is possible. But it will not be accomplished by trying to turn the Middle East into a beacon of Western values, especially if we maintain the borders instated following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, which are quite stupidly drawn.

I'm not suggesting that we only westernize the middle east's value structure, I'm suggesting that we do so in tandem with establishing a political environment where western values may be reinforced by the rule of law.

It would be accomplished through actual annexation of territories.

That would be the most ideal, I agree.

The effective implementation of this requires a degree of brutality which the American people aren't willing to stomach, and doing things halfway is worse than not interfering at all.

The problem, then, is with the American people's understanding of their role and place in the world, not with the means by which the end may transpire. That is not to say that the ends I'm proposing justify any means, but rather that the costs to the US are justified both by the benefit we receive and by the moral cause advanced, within reasonable boundaries. Not colonizing is that boundary.

The balancing act that we engage in when our hands are tied in order to maintain American interests in the region routinely leads us to support horrible regimes, including Mubarak, the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Musharraf, the Taliban, and Suharto.

What I'm suggesting is a way to both support (eventually) regimes in power while facilitating regional stability. In that manor, the US can have it's geopolitical cake and eat it too.

The evils perpetrated by these regimes far exceeds any which would have been committed under true American imperialism, while in the end being completely counterproductive if our goal is the spread of Western values.

I agree that there is great moral risk in the endeavor, which should reinforce our causing only what harm is absolutely unavoidable in the pursuit of the goal (and the ultimate goal is to greate a government which respects, protects and defends the rights of middle easterners).

I would say that if we don't plan on doing things right, then we ought not to do them at all.

I agree, which is why I concede that there are real limitations to what I'm saying. It would require four presidents elected in a row who have the backbone to get the job done, and a congress that even if it doesn't directly condone nation building abroad, doesn't interfere because they understand the moral imperative.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 12:14:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Btw, WSA, the reason that Choi's paper was published was because the conclusion was politically appealing to his peers who reviewed it. His research and methodology isn't flawed, but his conclusion is entirely too bold to be drawn from the data he assembled.
Tsar of DDO