Register to reply

Obama's Candidacy

by Pythagorean
Tags: candidacy, obama
Share this thread:
turbo
#361
Mar2-12, 01:46 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Huffington Post (AOL) has a timely article on the soccer field.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1314836.html

Chain-link fence (check) topped with razor-wire (check) with guard towers (check) and security cameras (I hadn't thought of that, but there appear to be plenty of them in the limited field of view of the photo). Plus everything had to be shipped in and erected on-site in a country that is quite hostile to our presence there. Comparing this soccer-field with a HS soccer-field in one's home-town is way past reasonable. And laying it all at Obama's feet is wrong, since he needs Congress to cooperate before closing the Gitmo prison.
WhoWee
#362
Mar2-12, 02:01 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
Huffington Post (AOL) has a timely article on the soccer field.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1314836.html

Chain-link fence (check) topped with razor-wire (check) with guard towers (check) and security cameras (I hadn't thought of that, but there appear to be plenty of them in the limited field of view of the photo). Plus everything had to be shipped in and erected on-site in a country that is quite hostile to our presence there. Comparing this soccer-field with a HS soccer-field in one's home-town is way past reasonable. And laying it all at Obama's feet is wrong, since he needs Congress to cooperate before closing the Gitmo prison.
The first link said the prisoners missed their small patch of dirt that had been used to play soccer. Did they really need a 28,000 square foot facility? Is the expense of $744,000 reasonable?
turbo
#363
Mar2-12, 02:05 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
The first link said the prisoners missed their small patch of dirt that had been used to play soccer. Did they really need a 28,000 square foot facility? Is the expense of $744,000 reasonable?
Ask the Pentagon, and the intelligence agencies that are handling these prisoners. Apparently, they thought so, and we here on PF are not on the "need to know" list.
Office_Shredder
#364
Mar2-12, 02:28 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,500
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
The first link said the prisoners missed their small patch of dirt that had been used to play soccer. Did they really need a 28,000 square foot facility? Is the expense of $744,000 reasonable?
You say 28,000 square feet as if they're living in the lap of luxury. Let's take a look at the playing field
http://www.kckrs.com/the-us-governme...bay-detainees/

28,000 square feet is half the area of a football field. It's not big, it's actually quite small
WhoWee
#365
Mar2-12, 02:39 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Office_Shredder View Post
You say 28,000 square feet as if they're living in the lap of luxury. Let's take a look at the playing field
http://www.kckrs.com/the-us-governme...bay-detainees/

28,000 square feet is half the area of a football field. It's not big, it's actually quite small
After viewing the photo - I'd describe it as prison-chic - certainly not the lap of luxury.

Do you honestly think an expense of $744,000 (as a taxpayer) is reasonable or would you have preferred they found another way to let them play ball in an existing area - given the small area required?
Office_Shredder
#366
Mar2-12, 02:45 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,500
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Do you honestly think an expense of $744,000 (as a taxpayer) is reasonable or would you have preferred they found another way to let them play ball in an existing area - given the small area required?
Obviously I would have preferred them to have another solution which is equal in every way except it costs less, but that seems like a bit of a strawman. Was there such an available space? Is the cost of the field offset by a decreased need for security/decreased medical costs/increased safety? It's impossible for us to know because we simply don't have enough information
WhoWee
#367
Mar2-12, 02:49 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Office_Shredder View Post
Obviously I would have preferred them to have another solution which is equal in every way except it costs less, but that seems like a bit of a strawman. Was there such an available space? Is the cost of the field offset by a decreased need for security/decreased medical costs/increased safety? It's impossible for us to know because we simply don't have enough information
The original story discussed a small patch of dirt - I don't know if it's still available or not?

Either way - the longer this issue is discussed - the campaign will be reminded that Gitmo is still open and the prior campaign promise is unfullfilled.
HowardVAgnew
#368
Mar2-12, 03:00 PM
P: 17
I can't vote for Obama for two big reasons: His anti-church/state-separation campaign by way of supporting faith-based initiatives where certain religious institutions are funded with tax dollars, and his running mate's support of a federal mandate to ban majority religion-disapproved marriages.

That said ... yeah, the extreme divisiveness and refusal to cooperate especially on the right means it takes an extremely yielding diplomat to get anything accomplished at all. I like Ron Paul especially for his rationality on foreign affairs (but his economic doctrine is a religion whose reality has been disproven many times over), but -- much as I would like to challenge him on his economic doctrine -- if I had a chance to interview him but could only address one topic, it would be how he could expect to enact any of his proposals with such a deadlocked Congress (especially with his own party where they differ so vastly with his ideals).

I think a lot of people over-estimate a president's power to get things done. Even when Democrats had a majority in both the House and Senate, Republicans effectively killed almost all legislative efforts through filibustering ... the president has no power to overcome the willful minority preventing bills from coming up for a vote in Congress. The President can propose legislation, but cannot enact legislation on his (/her if we ever get a female president) own without it passing through the mine field of minority-party filibustering and other dirty obstructive tricks in Congress.

I would certainly love to hold Newt's feet to the fire for a lot of the hypocritical flip-flops, but if I could interview him and somehow force him to answer just one question, it would probably be why he railed so loudly against Democrats for filibustering when he was in Congress and calling it dirty tricks, yet I have not heard one word of complaint from him on his own party when they were voted out of a majority by the American people yet hold the nation hostage by filibustering necessary legislation and budget approvals to keep the country running.
WhoWee
#369
Mar2-12, 03:07 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by HowardVAgnew View Post
I can't vote for Obama for two big reasons: His anti-church/state-separation campaign by way of supporting faith-based initiatives where certain religious institutions are funded with tax dollars, and his running mate's support of a federal mandate to ban majority religion-disapproved marriages.
Care to support and clarify a bit?
mheslep
#370
Mar2-12, 03:41 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,072
Quote Quote by HowardVAgnew View Post
...Ron Paul especially for his rationality on foreign affairs (but his economic doctrine is a religion whose reality has been disproven many times over), ...
I'd say the idea of borrowing $1.3T a year for out of control entitlement spending is the dis-proven religion.


(Over in the RP thread, perhaps you could briefly mention an aspect of Paul's economic position that has been disproved many times)
Gokul43201
#371
Mar2-12, 05:30 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,155
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Do you honestly think an expense of $744,000 (as a taxpayer) is reasonable or would you have preferred they found another way [...]?
I think it's probably not reasonable. I think it would be a lot cheaper if they shut down Gitmo and held these people locally.

<\glib>
BobG
#372
Mar3-12, 08:08 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
BobG's Avatar
P: 2,278
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
The original story discussed a small patch of dirt - I don't know if it's still available or not?

Either way - the longer this issue is discussed - the campaign will be reminded that Gitmo is still open and the prior campaign promise is unfullfilled.
The latter is the real problem. 171 detainees, of which 5 have actually been convicted of anything. In fact, about half have been cleared for release, but can't currently be released to their home country and we don't want them released in the US (doesn't matter if they were innocent - just being suspects carries too strong a taint for most people).

Given that we're detaining innocent people (in addition to the 5 guilty people), I don't think it's too much to ask that they at least be detained in humane conditions.
WhoWee
#373
Mar3-12, 09:46 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by BobG View Post
The latter is the real problem. 171 detainees, of which 5 have actually been convicted of anything. In fact, about half have been cleared for release, but can't currently be released to their home country and we don't want them released in the US (doesn't matter if they were innocent - just being suspects carries too strong a taint for most people).

Given that we're detaining innocent people (in addition to the 5 guilty people), I don't think it's too much to ask that they at least be detained in humane conditions.
I don't think we're trying hard enough to give them back and there's NO logical reason to release them inside the US.
russ_watters
#374
Mar3-12, 11:12 AM
Mentor
P: 22,223
Quote Quote by BobG View Post
...and we don't want them released in the US (doesn't matter if they were innocent - just being suspects carries too strong a taint for most people).
Er, well, that and they aren't citizens nor legal immigrants.
Given that we're detaining innocent people (in addition to the 5 guilty people), I don't think it's too much to ask that they at least be detained in humane conditions.
Guilty or innocent of what*? If we're talking about people who were merely foreign fighters that were "innocent" of terrorism or war crimes charges, they are still foreign fighters and shouldn't just be released - much less released into the US.

*It is a logical fallacy to label anyone who is not convicted "innocent" in this context.
HowardVAgnew
#375
Mar3-12, 11:31 AM
P: 17
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Care to support and clarify a bit?
It should not be news to anyone who has followed Obama and Biden since the campaign days:

Faith Based Initiatives, a carryover from the Bush era, seeks to "theocratize" social services by replacing, say, government-run non-religious homeless shelters with church-run mission shelters funded by taxpayers. It replaces a genuine social safety network with subsidized religious organizations ... I lived in a mission shelter for a few months and while I was grateful for a shower and a bed to sleep on, I was effectively barred from getting work by rules which required attendance of 2-hour religious services three times per day and was required to work in exchange for the room and board, bundling magazines for recycling. While that seems fair, consider the shelter, being religious, pays no taxes, the operators of the shelter had no other source of funds yet were able to maintain expensive clothes and a late-model expensive car from the money they personally pocketted from a combination of donations to the shelter and the recycling operation they ran with essentially free labor. I had been promised that I did not actually need to be Christian myself, but I was very loudly and verbally chastized when I answered a question yelled loudly at me whether I am Christian.

As for Biden: He voted to support the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996, and several times throughout the presidential campaign of 2008 said he would support a federal-level ban on gay marriage.

Do you need more clarification?
HowardVAgnew
#376
Mar3-12, 11:45 AM
P: 17
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
I'd say the idea of borrowing $1.3T a year for out of control entitlement spending is the dis-proven religion.


(Over in the RP thread, perhaps you could briefly mention an aspect of Paul's economic position that has been disproved many times)
Spending on social safety network programs is at among its lowest in decades, and the results are devastating. The Lasseiz-faire economic doctrine (the notion that everyone is better off if the market is free of taxes and regulation; by some interpretations by also prohibiting organized labor and not providing any social safety network and nothing owned by 'the public') has been tried many times. Child labor laws, ending company stores, breaking up monopolies like Standard Oil and AT&T, raising and implementing taxes, Roosevelt's New Deal and Kennedy's Medicare and Medicaid all chipped away at the "anything for profit is allowed" lasseiz-faire doctrine pushed by conservatives like Ron Paul. Another popular name for it is "trickle-down" economic theory ... under Reagan and W. Bush, taxes were cut and promised to equate to more jobs and more tax revenue because businesses would have more money to hire people and thus would hire more people and magically create new tax revenue at the same time, but both times (and previous attempts in previous administrations) it failed. Further, despite raising taxes several times, the economy actually improved under Clinton; if the lasseiz-faire/trickle down theory were correct, that should be impossible. The reality of economics is whatever is allowed to generate wealth will be exploited and in the end, the highest profit for the lowest expense will defeat any differing way (such as responsibility in avoiding negative externalities) without some sort of watch dog, and the overall well-being of a society is not so much weather it has a few very wealthy people, but whether the needs of the many are met.
WhoWee
#377
Mar3-12, 12:12 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by HowardVAgnew View Post
It should not be news to anyone who has followed Obama and Biden since the campaign days:

Faith Based Initiatives, a carryover from the Bush era, seeks to "theocratize" social services by replacing, say, government-run non-religious homeless shelters with church-run mission shelters funded by taxpayers. It replaces a genuine social safety network with subsidized religious organizations ... I lived in a mission shelter for a few months and while I was grateful for a shower and a bed to sleep on, I was effectively barred from getting work by rules which required attendance of 2-hour religious services three times per day and was required to work in exchange for the room and board, bundling magazines for recycling. While that seems fair, consider the shelter, being religious, pays no taxes, the operators of the shelter had no other source of funds yet were able to maintain expensive clothes and a late-model expensive car from the money they personally pocketted from a combination of donations to the shelter and the recycling operation they ran with essentially free labor. I had been promised that I did not actually need to be Christian myself, but I was very loudly and verbally chastized when I answered a question yelled loudly at me whether I am Christian.

As for Biden: He voted to support the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996, and several times throughout the presidential campaign of 2008 said he would support a federal-level ban on gay marriage.

Do you need more clarification?
Your clarification is fine - now - can you support?
WhoWee
#378
Mar3-12, 12:13 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by HowardVAgnew View Post
Spending on social safety network programs is at among its lowest in decades, and the results are devastating. The Lasseiz-faire economic doctrine (the notion that everyone is better off if the market is free of taxes and regulation; by some interpretations by also prohibiting organized labor and not providing any social safety network and nothing owned by 'the public') has been tried many times. Child labor laws, ending company stores, breaking up monopolies like Standard Oil and AT&T, raising and implementing taxes, Roosevelt's New Deal and Kennedy's Medicare and Medicaid all chipped away at the "anything for profit is allowed" lasseiz-faire doctrine pushed by conservatives like Ron Paul. Another popular name for it is "trickle-down" economic theory ... under Reagan and W. Bush, taxes were cut and promised to equate to more jobs and more tax revenue because businesses would have more money to hire people and thus would hire more people and magically create new tax revenue at the same time, but both times (and previous attempts in previous administrations) it failed. Further, despite raising taxes several times, the economy actually improved under Clinton; if the lasseiz-faire/trickle down theory were correct, that should be impossible. The reality of economics is whatever is allowed to generate wealth will be exploited and in the end, the highest profit for the lowest expense will defeat any differing way (such as responsibility in avoiding negative externalities) without some sort of watch dog, and the overall well-being of a society is not so much weather it has a few very wealthy people, but whether the needs of the many are met.
Please support - my bold.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ron Paul's candidacy Current Events 578
Rick Santorum's candidacy ... Current Events 492
Jon Huntsman's Candidacy Current Events 47
Evo's candidacy... Current Events 23