Oh, I'm sorry that you live in an outdated model of evolution... see, here in the 21st century, we have the technology, money, and (hopefully) willpower to make sure that things like "Survival of the Fittest" don't necessarily apply anymore.
You couldn't be more wrong. Survival of the fittest is as relevant now as it was when your ancestor was sitting in a hut trying to con my ancestor out of the Mammoth Meat he just brought home.
You dumb fucking cunt. Why is there this pervasive belief in the US, especially amongst politicians, that terrorists are constantly grossing the border from Canada in to the US? Not a single fucking one of the 9/11 terrorists came through Canada, not one. And yet we have the Homeland Security Secretary once again speaking as if not only did some of them come across, so have numerous others.
Last I checked, other than 9/11 and the WTC bombing, most terrorism in the US has been domestic. They say there's lot of extremists who have tried to enter the US, but the only known one was the Millenium bomber, and he was caught. Before 9/11 and increased security.
Not to mention that if you talk to people who have entered Canada and the US recently, they'll typically tell you that the Canadian border security tends to be a far larger pain in the ass than the American border.
You couldn't be more wrong. Survival of the fittest is as relevant now as it was when your ancestor was sitting in a hut trying to con my ancestor out of the Mammoth Meat he just brought home.
I'm not sure what history classes you took, but if they're hunting mammoth, they're sharing with the tribe anyway. It was a communal effort. COOL. THIS GAME ROCKS.
[Edit] NICE DOUBLE POST THERE TUCO.
__________________
"When the last tree has died; and the last river been poisoned; and the last fish been caught, we will realise that we cannot eat money." - Cree proverb
You dumb fucking cunt. Why is there this pervasive belief in the US, especially amongst politicians, that terrorists are constantly grossing the border from Canada in to the US? Not a single fucking one of the 9/11 terrorists came through Canada, not one. And yet we have the Homeland Security Secretary once again speaking as if not only did some of them come across, so have numerous others.
Last I checked, other than 9/11 and the WTC bombing, most terrorism in the US has been domestic. They say there's lot of extremists who have tried to enter the US, but the only known one was the Millenium bomber, and he was caught. Before 9/11 and increased security.
Not to mention that if you talk to people who have entered Canada and the US recently, they'll typically tell you that the Canadian border security tends to be a far larger pain in the ass than the American border.
Securing the borders is impossible, airport security is an expensive joke manned 90% by dicks who don't give a shit (they are paid shitty salaries, I can't blame them for not giving a shit and being jaded) and 10% by wannabe Jack Bauers and the hundreds of miles of coastline is an open invitation to smuggle anything and anyone in at pretty much any time.
The best strategy for US Gov officials is to have the US population believe it's all "THE OTHERS"' fault because the border isn't secure and will never be truly secure.
And it's not like the Canadian gov can do much about it, "Canada protests recent remarks by US Gov officials" articles will be relegated to the back of whatever blog/website/newspaper.
WASHINGTON – For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public's mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future.
If the opposite were true it would be the lead story on Fox News for 1 week, a Drudge siren story, and talk radio would "discuss" it for 2 solid weeks.
April 29 should be a national holiday so we can celebrate Obama's 100 days of freedom from Republicans.
Last edited by I'm Rich Bitch; 04-23-2009 at 06:50 AM..
I know this article is old, but I think it is good enough to post anyways. It demonstrates why I voted for Obama. Most news stations described his trip to Europe as medicore, or in some cases such as Fox news... an outright failure. The problem is... the guy is operating at a level that is hard for a layman to grasp. Geo politics is super complicated shit and thank god we have a smart guy at the helm now.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Obama's Strategy and the Summits
April 6, 2009
By George Friedman
Related Special Topic Page
A World Redefined: The Global Summits
The weeklong extravaganza of G-20, NATO, EU, U.S. and Turkey meetings has almost ended. The spin emerging from the meetings, echoed in most of the media, sought to portray the meetings as a success and as reflecting a re-emergence of trans-Atlantic unity.
The reality, however, is that the meetings ended in apparent unity because the United States accepted European unwillingness to compromise on key issues. U.S. President Barack Obama wanted the week to appear successful, and therefore backed off on key issues; the Europeans did the same. Moreover, Obama appears to have set a process in motion that bypasses Europe to focus on his last stop: Turkey.
Berlin, Washington and the G-20
Let’s begin with the G-20 meeting, which focused on the global financial crisis. As we said last year, there were many European positions, but the United States was reacting to Germany’s. Not only is Germany the largest economy in Europe, it is the largest exporter in the world. Any agreement that did not include Germany would be useless, whereas an agreement excluding the rest of Europe but including Germany would still be useful.
Two fundamental issues divided the United States and Germany. The first was whether Germany would match or come close to the U.S. stimulus package. The United States wanted Germany to stimulate its own domestic demand. Obama feared that if the United States put a stimulus plan into place, Germany would use increased demand in the U.S. market to expand its exports. The United States would wind up with massive deficits while the Germans took advantage of U.S. spending, thus letting Berlin enjoy the best of both worlds. Washington felt it had to stimulate its economy, and that this would inevitably benefit the rest of the world. But Washington wanted burden sharing. Berlin, quite rationally, did not. Even before the meetings, the United States dropped the demand — Germany was not going to cooperate.
The second issue was the financing of the bailout of the Central European banking system, heavily controlled by eurozone banks and part of the EU financial system. The Germans did not want an EU effort to bail out the banks. They wanted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out a substantial part of the EU financial system instead. The reason was simple: The IMF receives loans from the United States, as well as China and Japan, meaning the Europeans would be joined by others in underwriting the bailout. The United States has signaled it would be willing to contribute $100 billion to the IMF, of which a substantial portion would go to Central Europe. (Of the current loans given by the IMF, roughly 80 percent have gone to the struggling economies in Central Europe.) The United States therefore essentially has agreed to the German position.
Later at the NATO meeting, the Europeans — including Germany — declined to send substantial forces to Afghanistan. Instead, they designated a token force of 5,000, most of whom are scheduled to be in Afghanistan only until the August elections there, and few of whom actually would be engaged in combat operations. This is far below what Obama had been hoping for when he began his presidency.
Agreement was reached on collaboration in detecting international tax fraud and on further collaboration in managing the international crisis, however. But what that means remains extremely vague — as it was meant to be, since there was no consensus on what was to be done. In fact, the actual guidelines will still have to be hashed out at the G-20 finance ministers’ meeting in Scotland in November. Intriguingly, after insisting on the creation of a global regulatory regime — and with the vague U.S. assent — the European Union failed to agree on European regulations. In a meeting in Prague on April 4, the United Kingdom rejected the regulatory regime being proposed by Germany and France, saying it would leave the British banking system at a disadvantage.
Overall, the G-20 and the NATO meetings did not produce significant breakthroughs. Rather than pushing hard on issues or trading concessions — such as accepting Germany’s unwillingness to increase its stimulus package in return for more troops in Afghanistan — the United States failed to press or bargain. It preferred to appear as part of a consensus rather than appear isolated. The United States systematically avoided any appearance of disagreement.
The reason there was no bargaining was fairly simple: The Germans were not prepared to bargain. They came to the meetings with prepared positions, and the United States had no levers with which to move them. The only option was to withhold funding for the IMF, and that would have been a political disaster (not to mention economically rather unwise). The United States would have been seen as unwilling to participate in multilateral solutions rather than Germany being seen as trying to foist its economic problems on others. Obama has positioned himself as a multilateralist and can’t afford the political consequences of deviating from this perception. Contributing to the IMF, in these days of trillion-dollar bailouts, was the lower-cost alternative. Thus, the Germans have the U.S. boxed in.
The political aspect of this should not be underestimated. George W. Bush had extremely bad relations with the Europeans (in large part because he was prepared to confront them). This was Obama’s first major international foray, and he could not let it end in acrimony or wind up being seen as unable to move the Europeans after running a campaign based on his ability to manage the Western coalition. It was important that he come home having reached consensus with the Europeans. Backing off on key economic and military demands gave him that “consensus.”
Turkey and Obama’s Deeper Game
But it was not simply a matter of domestic politics. It is becoming clear that Obama is playing a deeper game. A couple of weeks before the meetings, when it had become obvious that the Europeans were not going to bend on the issues that concerned the United States, Obama scheduled a trip to Turkey. During the EU meetings in Prague, Obama vigorously supported the Turkish application for EU membership, which several members are blocking on grounds of concerns over human rights and the role of the military in Turkey. But the real reason is that full membership would open European borders to Turkish migration, and the Europeans do not want free Turkish migration. The United States directly confronted the Europeans on this matter.
During the NATO meeting, a key item on the agenda was the selection of a new alliance secretary-general. The favorite was former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Turkey opposed his candidacy because of his defense on grounds of free speech of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish magazine. NATO operates on consensus, so any one member can block just about anything. The Turks backed off the veto, but won two key positions in NATO, including that of deputy secretary-general.
So while the Germans won their way at the meetings, it was the Turks who came back with the most. Not only did they boost their standing in NATO, they got Obama to come to a vigorous defense of the Turkish application for membership in the European Union, which of course the United States does not belong to. Obama then flew to Turkey for meetings and to attend a key international meeting that will allow him to further position the United States in relation to Islam.
The Russian Dimension
Let’s diverge to another dimension of these talks, which still concerns Turkey, but also concerns the Russians. While atmospherics after the last week’s meetings might have improved, there was certainly no fundamental shift in U.S.-Russian relations. The Russians have rejected the idea of pressuring Iran over its nuclear program in return for the United States abandoning its planned ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The United States simultaneously downplayed the importance of a Russian route to Afghanistan. Washington said there were sufficient supplies in Afghanistan and enough security on the Pakistani route such that the Russians weren’t essential for supplying Western operations in Afghanistan. At the same time, the United States reached an agreement with Ukraine for the transshipment of supplies — a mostly symbolic gesture, but one guaranteed to infuriate the Russians at both the United States and Ukraine. Moreover, the NATO communique did not abandon the idea of Ukraine and Georgia being admitted to NATO, although the German position on unspecified delays to such membership was there as well. When Obama looks at the chessboard, the key emerging challenge remains Russia.
The Germans are not going to be joining the United States in blocking Russia. Between dependence on Russia for energy supplies and little appetite for confronting a Russia that Berlin sees as no real immediate threat to Germany, the Germans are not going to address the Russian question. At the same time, the United States does not want to push the Germans toward Russia, particularly in confrontations ultimately of secondary importance and on which Germany has no give anyway. Obama is aware that the German left is viscerally anti-American, while Merkel is only pragmatically anti-American — a small distinction, but significant enough for Washington not to press Berlin.
At the same time, an extremely important event between Turkey and Armenia looks to be on the horizon. Armenians had long held Turkey responsible for the mass murder of Armenians during and after World War I, a charge the Turks have denied. The U.S. Congress for several years has threatened to pass a resolution condemning Turkish genocide against Armenians. The Turks are extraordinarily sensitive to this charge, and passage would have meant a break with the United States. Last week, they publicly began to discuss an agreement with the Armenians, including diplomatic recognition, which essentially disarms the danger from any U.S. resolution on genocide. Although an actual agreement hasn’t been signed just yet, anticipation is building on all sides.
The Turkish opening to Armenia has potentially significant implications for the balance of power in the Caucasus. The August 2008 Russo-Georgian war created an unstable situation in an area of vital importance to Russia. Russian troops remain deployed, and NATO has called for their withdrawal from the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There are Russian troops in Armenia, meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded. In addition, there is talk of an alternative natural gas pipeline network from Azerbaijan to Europe.
Turkey is the key to all of this. If Ankara collaborates with Russia, Georgia’s position is precarious and Azerbaijan’s route to Europe is blocked. If it cooperates with the United States and also manages to reach a stable treaty with Armenia under U.S. auspices, the Russian position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe opens up, decreasing Russian leverage against Europe.
From the American point of view, Europe is a lost cause since internally it cannot find a common position and its heavyweights are bound by their relationship with Russia. It cannot agree on economic policy, nor do its economic interests coincide with those of the United States, at least insofar as Germany is concerned. As far as Russia is concerned, Germany and Europe are locked in by their dependence on Russian natural gas. The U.S.-European relationship thus is torn apart not by personalities, but by fundamental economic and military realities. No amount of talking will solve that problem.
The key to sustaining the U.S.-German alliance is reducing Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas and putting Russia on the defensive rather than the offensive. The key to that now is Turkey, since it is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to get to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey — which has deep influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Middle East and the Balkans — is prepared to ally with the United States, Russia is on the defensive and a long-term solution to Germany’s energy problem can be found. On the other hand, if Turkey decides to take a defensive position and moves to cooperate with Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is locked into Russian-controlled energy for a generation.
Therefore, having sat through fruitless meetings with the Europeans, Obama chose not to cause a pointless confrontation with a Europe that is out of options. Instead, Obama completed his trip by going to Turkey to discuss what the treaty with Armenia means and to try to convince the Turks to play for high stakes by challenging Russia in the Caucasus, rather than playing Russia’s junior partner.
This is why Obama’s most important speech in Europe was his last one, following Turkey’s emergence as a major player in NATO’s political structure. In that speech, he sided with the Turks against Europe, and extracted some minor concessions from the Europeans on the process for considering Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Why Turkey wants to be an EU member is not always obvious to us, but they do want membership. Obama is trying to show the Turks that he can deliver for them. He reiterated — if not laid it on even more heavily — all of this in his speech in Ankara. Obama laid out the U.S. position as one that recognized the tough geopolitical position Turkey is in and the leader that Turkey is becoming, and also recognized the commonalities between Washington and Ankara. This was exactly what Turkey wanted to hear.
The Caucasus is far from the only area to discuss. Talks will be held about blocking Iran in Iraq, U.S. relations with Syria and Syrian talks with Israel, and Central Asia, where both countries have interests. But the most important message to the Europeans will be that Europe is where you go for photo opportunities, but Turkey is where you go to do the business of geopolitics. It is unlikely that the Germans and French will get it. Their sense of what is happening in the world is utterly Eurocentric. But the Central Europeans, on the frontier with Russia and feeling quite put out by the German position on their banks, certainly do get it.
Obama gave the Europeans a pass for political reasons, and because arguing with the Europeans simply won’t yield benefits. But the key to the trip is what he gets out of Turkey — and whether in his speech to the civilizations, he can draw some of the venom out of the Islamic world by showing alignment with the largest economy among Muslim states, Turkey.
__________________
-Headspace
Last edited by headspace; 04-23-2009 at 09:32 AM..
As he approaches the 100-day mark of his presidency, Barack Obama’s job approval ratings are higher than those of his most recent predecessors. However, the 44th president is even more distinguished by his strong personal popularity. Fully 73% of Americans – including as many as 46% of Republicans – hold a favorable view of Obama as a person. Fewer people held favorable impressions of George W. Bush (61%) and Bill Clinton (60%) early in their first years.
Maybe we can get attacked by Terrorists or the economy can sink into a deep depression along with inflation so you can cheer up. I would suggest getting Fox News to run some Rev. Wright videos to help ya out.
I'd just like to thank President Obama for the new shiny guard-rail-things lining some of our main local road. I'm figuring local corruption and inefficencies made them cost about 3x more than they had to, and they see excessive... but... um... guess it was good.
Democrat spends $150 million on an airport that serves ~20 passengers a day. Gets 800k from stimulus money to repave an ALTERNATIVE runway (casue you know, the main one right now is being torn to shit with the massive 3 flights a day)
__________________
“White folks was in caves while we was building empires ... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”
-Rev. Al Sharpton
This is just like Bobby Jindal railing against volcano monitoring and then a week later, a volcano in Alaska exploded. God must really hate the Republicans.
This is just like Bobby Jindal railing against volcano monitoring and then a week later, a volcano in Alaska exploded. God must really hate the Republicans.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias, it's not their fault.
Anyone with legal experience care to take a stab at this? Got one article that says the Obama admin is trying to undo the Michigan v Jackson ruling of 1986 and the other side that says the right to have an attorney present before further questioning takes place was established in Edwards v Arizona.
Anyone with legal experience care to take a stab at this? Got one article that says the Obama admin is trying to undo the Michigan v Jackson ruling of 1986 and the other side that says the right to have an attorney present before further questioning takes place was established in Edwards v Arizona.
It doesn't pass the smell test. There are about one hundred reasons why Obama would not impede on a suspects right to representation (in the united states). Trial Lawyers would go batshit and so would civil rights leaders, just to name 2.
The point that article is asserting is that the Obama administration wants to overturn some decision so that detainees in the war on terror can't use it in their defense. That paper, without ever citing specifics about when where and how Obama is trying to do this, is trying to build a case against the way Obama is prosecuting the war on terror. Their further implication that Obama, in trying to do this, would be removing that right from all criminal suspects in the united states is again unfounded. They don't even try to prove it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kegkilla
the war was sold on a lot of premises that turned out to be bullshit, why the fuck should that mean that can't have a fucking Ferris wheel if they want a god damn Ferris wheel?
Last edited by whatsamattau; 04-27-2009 at 09:08 AM..
04-22-2009, 09:29 AM
Linear Mode
