Georgia Grand Jury Returns 10 out of 10 Charges

[auburnatl1 5,006]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

You asked for a link, you got it. Just like Toyota. Except now, you want to argue with the once-revered link. That's weird.

What's Trump got to do with Obama bowing down and apologizing to various dictators and Sheiks for "American Exceptionalism"? Can't deny Obama kow-towing to second rate  leaders so you try to bring Trump in?

The problem many liberals like Obama have with the “American exceptionalism” term (which is somewhat real and somewhat self promotion) is that it requires raw capitalism to achieve it. Ambition, risk oriented, individual brilliance, high work ethic, innovation,  ect. And the problem with  capitalism is that it greatly rewards those who  have these attributes over others that don’t. Which results in financial inequality.

There’s a reason both China and russia can build things but can rarely invent and pioneer things. Communism/ socialism disregards individualism and consequentially crushes innovation.

Edited August 19, 2023 by auburnatl1

[homersapien 11,426]

32 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

The problem many liberals like Obama have with the “American exceptionalism” term (which is somewhat real and somewhat self promotion) is that it requires raw capitalism to achieve it. Ambition, risk oriented, individual brilliance, high work ethic, innovation,  ect. And the problem with  capitalism is that it greatly rewards those who  have these attributes over others that don’t. Which results in financial inequality.

There’s a reason both China and reason can build things but can rarely invent and pioneer things. Communism/ socialism disregards individualism and consequentially crushes innovation.

Funny how Obama gets criticized for being in bed with Wall Street while at the same time gets criticized for being anti-capitalist.  

Edited August 19, 2023 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 5,006]

Just now, homersapien said:

Funny how Obama gets criticized for being in the pocket of Wall Street while at the same time gets criticized for being anti-capitalist.  

I’ve always believed that what Obama really believes and what he says aren’t always aligned. He’s a pure politician

[homersapien 11,426]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Link to it if it’s real.

I'd like to see some "apologetic" quotes from Obama while he's at it.

[homersapien 11,426]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

I've learned that this is one of your favorite tricks. When you are hemmed up, you ask for a link to something that is established common knowledge. Assuming you aren't truly that poorly informed, this gambit of yours has worn itself out.

"established common knowledge" 

Maybe in your cult.

[homersapien 11,426]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

And they can’t point to a single apology. You were tailor made for a guy like Trump. All someone has to do is slap a dishonest label on something and you repeat it till the cows come home.

Nah, the problem is you just keep your eyes closed. 

There is about a third of this country that live in an "alternative" reality.

[auburnatl1 5,006]

I think all the Monroe doctrine, apology tour stuff comes from the fact that for decades the cia closely monitored Latin America and  manipulated many governments to repel communism or to get the outcomes we wanted (ie supporting the Panamanian separatists from Colombia so we could build and later control the canal). Whether Obama needed to publicly apologize is debatable and you could argue we helped far more than we hurt - but there is no doubt the US did dominate the hemisphere and there is resentment from it.

[homersapien 11,426]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

You asked for a link, you got it. Just like Toyota. Except now, you want to argue with the once-revered link. That's weird.

What's Trump got to do with Obama bowing down and apologizing to various dictators and Sheiks for "American Exceptionalism"? Can't deny Obama kow-towing to second rate  leaders so you try to bring Trump in?

So now it's Obama who is the one who kow tows to dictators and sheiks????!!    

Edited August 19, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,426]

17 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I’ve always believed that what Obama really believes and what he says aren’t always aligned. He’s a pure politician

Perhaps he's a principled pragmatist?

That's not a bad formula for a president.

[homersapien 11,426]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

What do you think would have happened without it?

It's easy to monday morning quarterback when your entire investment portfolio is no longer on the table.

[homersapien 11,426]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

You asked for a link, you got it. Just like Toyota. Except now, you want to argue with the once-revered link. That's weird.

What's Trump got to do with Obama bowing down and apologizing to various dictators and Sheiks for "American Exceptionalism"? Can't deny Obama kow-towing to second rate  leaders so you try to bring Trump in?

Yep.  Then they became just another conservative mouthpiece owned by Murdoch, with an biased opinion.

How about quoting an example of one those "apologies"?

Edited August 19, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,426]

15 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I think all the Monroe doctrine, apology tour stuff comes from the fact that for decades the cia closely monitored Latin America and  manipulated many governments to repel communism or to get the outcomes we wanted (ie supporting the Panamanian separatists from Colombia so we could build and later control the canal). Whether Obama needed to publicly apologize is debatable and you could argue we helped far more than we hurt - but there is no doubt the US did dominate the hemisphere and there is resentment from it.

Perhaps he was not "apologizing" as much as simply addressing that resentment in a diplomatic way?

After all, we do imagine ourselves as the world's foremost bastion and champion of democracy. I think a little justified humility goes a long way in reinforcing that image in the rest of the world.

Edited August 19, 2023 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 5,006]

Just now, homersapien said:

Perhaps he's a principled pragmatist?

That's not a bad formula for a president.

Obama problem was that he wasn’t a pragmatist and imo indirectly initiated much of the extreme rights cause and effect nuttiness. It all began with the Tea Party. His (potentially well meaning) approach to health care and other initiatives were done by pure bullying and not convincing. And he had the savvy and charm tools to do the later if he’d just been more patient and taken the time to get more of the country on board. His 2nd term was a polarized mess and lead to 2016

 

[homersapien 11,426]

7 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Obama problem was that he wasn’t a pragmatist and imo indirectly initiated much of the extreme rights cause and effect nuttiness. It all began with the Tea Party. His (potentially well meaning) approach to health care and other initiatives were done by pure bullying and not convincing. And he had the savvy and charm tools to do the later if he’d just been more patient and taken the time to get more of the country on board. His 2nd term was a polarized mess and lead to 2016

 hin

I disagree.  I think the "getting in bed" with Wall Street to avoid the likely alternative is a good example of his pragmatism.  

And I really don't know about alternatives he had regarding "Obama care".  I do know that it "advanced the ball" and that it generally has popular support today.  That sounds pragmatic to me.

Regarding the backlash from the right, I consider that more or less inevitable.  I don't think there is anything Obama - especially as the first black POTUS - could have done to prevent it.  I think it was "baked in" to our culture, especially regarding wealth disparity, the bank bail out and changing demographics.  The country was ripe for a demagogue and Trump jumped into the vacuum.

But then, I'm no political scientist. 

[Didba 5,256]

5 hours ago, Mikey said:

What does the Monroe Doctrine have to do with the claim that Hitler's rise to power is America's fault?

The Monroe doctrine started the US’s foreign policy of American non-interventionism. Part of Hitler’s rise to power in Germany was allowed by inaction by the winning countries of world war 1.

I never claimed the rise of Hitler was solely America’s fault the only thing I would claim was that our foreign policy of non-interventionism played a part in allowing a power vacuum to arise in post-war Germany. Someone else might have though. 

You can read through this summary if you’d like to brush up on the topic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism

 

[Didba 5,256]

5 hours ago, Mikey said:

I've learned that this is one of your favorite tricks. When you are hemmed up, you ask for a link to something that is established common knowledge. Assuming you aren't truly that poorly informed, this gambit of yours has worn itself out.

Asking for a cite in support for a claim someone is making isn’t a trick. Standard practice in academic and legal research. For that matter, it’s standard in any writing based research course at Auburn.

If it was established common knowledge it would only take you thirty seconds to google it, find a source/cite, copy then paste it in a reply. 

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, Mikey said:

Now that I've unloaded the dishwasher and the grass is still too wet to mow, I decided to take you up on your childish game. Here's your link, one of many available: "The President's Apology Tour".

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124044156269345357

That’s an opinion piece. 

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, Mikey said:

You asked for a link, you got it. Just like Toyota. Except now, you want to argue with the once-revered link. That's weird.

What's Trump got to do with Obama bowing down and apologizing to various dictators and Sheiks for "American Exceptionalism"? Can't deny Obama kow-towing to second rate  leaders so you try to bring Trump in?

I mean citing to an opinion piece that is pay-walled isn’t really citing a source. 

[Didba 5,256]

3 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

The problem many liberals like Obama have with the “American exceptionalism” term (which is somewhat real and somewhat self promotion) is that it requires raw capitalism to achieve it. Ambition, risk oriented, individual brilliance, high work ethic, innovation,  ect. And the problem with  capitalism is that it greatly rewards those who  have these attributes over others that don’t. Which results in financial inequality.

There’s a reason both China and russia can build things but can rarely invent and pioneer things. Communism/ socialism disregards individualism and consequentially crushes innovation.

Unfettered capitalism actually becomes extremely inefficient and bloated over time by monopolies and concentration of wealth in the 1%. We already did it here in America between the 1870s to 1930s, it largely led to the Great Depression. Regulated capitalism in socialist-lite democracies is the best way of achieving balance.

And I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just wanted to add in, unfettered capitalism can produce just as many negative outcomes as communism in just very different ways. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

I disagree.  I think the "getting in bed" with Wall Street to avoid the likely alternative is a good example of his pragmatism.  

And I really don't know about alternatives he had regarding "Obama care".  I do know that it "advanced the ball" and that it generally has popular support today.  That sounds pragmatic to me.

Regarding the backlash from the right, I consider that more or less inevitable.  I don't think there is anything Obama - especially as the first black POTUS - could have done to prevent it.  I think it was "baked in" to our culture, especially regarding wealth disparity, the bank bail out and changing demographics.  The country was ripe for a demagogue and Trump jumped into the vacuum.

But then, I'm no political scientist. 

From a political scientist this isn’t too far off. 

[Didba 5,256]

3 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

The problem many liberals like Obama have with the “American exceptionalism” term (which is somewhat real and somewhat self promotion) is that it requires raw capitalism to achieve it. Ambition, risk oriented, individual brilliance, high work ethic, innovation,  ect. And the problem with  capitalism is that it greatly rewards those who  have these attributes over others that don’t. Which results in financial inequality.

There’s a reason both China and russia can build things but can rarely invent and pioneer things. Communism/ socialism disregards individualism and consequentially crushes innovation.

Also, Obama was not a liberal. Sanders is liberal, Obama is a moderate centrist. 

[auburnatl1 5,006]

3 minutes ago, Didba said:

Unfettered capitalism actually becomes extremely inefficient and bloated over time by monopolies and concentration of wealth in the 1%. We already did it here in America between the 1870s to 1930s, it largely led to the Great Depression. Regulated capitalism in socialist-lite democracies is the best way of achieving balance.

 

I agree. Which is why there’s anti trust. There are “bugs” in capitalism . The challenge is if you…  “fetter” too much - you start breaking way  way way more than you fix.  Conservatives are ultimately survival of the fittest oriented and  liberals are about “fair” and subtle redistribution of wealth.  Which is why I’m a moderate and believe both sides have a point but run too far in either direction. Ps The paradox of liberals is that they  love watching documentaries about the Serengeti and nature until they see the first gazelle being eaten. 😇

[AUFAN78 3,926]

On 8/15/2023 at 10:18 AM, auburnatl1 said:

Republicans can’t use the “well he may be traitor and a sociopath but I like his policies ” schtick any more.

They can and will.

For example:

Economy-avg family spending $700 per month more than when Biden took office

Border-unprecedented illegal crossings and admittance

Foreign policy-brink of war

Crime-obvious and no need to elaborate

 

[AUDub 11,169]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

I agree. Which is why there’s anti trust. There are “bugs” in capitalism . The challenge is if you…  “fetter” too much - you start breaking way  way way more than you fix.  Conservatives are ultimately survival of the fittest oriented and  liberals are about “fair” and subtle redistribution of wealth.  Which is why I’m a moderate and believe both sides have a point but run too far in either direction. Ps The paradox of liberals is that they  love watching documentaries about the Serengeti and nature until they see the first gazelle being eaten. 😇

Finding that sweet spot between "the strong jawed captains of industry" and "Stalin did nothing wrong" is tough lol. 

[auburnatl1 5,006]

12 minutes ago, Didba said:

Also, Obama was not a liberal. Sanders is liberal, Obama is a moderate centrist. 

Obama is a moderate…. That’s quite an interesting horse shoe you have.