US Politics: Confederacy vs Nazis vs USSR

[awesome possum]

Hillary Clinton did nothing about it

Thanks for cutting through all the crap and pointing out what this is all about. The facts show that there's no story to Benghazi just as the facts show that the GOP is only interested in dancing on those dead Americans graves in a sad, pathetic attempt to hurt Hillary Clinton.

[TrackerNeil]

Yes, the discussion of Bengazi is much more interesting than the prior historic discussions.

...

I'd like to emphasize this sarcasm. Seriously. Benghazi is a non-issue to all but the wingnuts, so let's not encourage discussion of non-issues, yes?

[BloodRider]

You're claiming that a US military response team commandeered a jet and flew it from Tripoli to Benghazi without having been ordered to do so? Do you have a credible source to back up this utterly bizarre claim?

Also, why does a military response require a direct order from the president?

BENGHAZI!!!!!!

Sorry, that's all I got.

Someone needs to do an EHRMGAHD! BHEANGUSTY! meme.

OK that somebody is me:

http://imgur.com/gallery/ZpJSKqC

[sologdin]

denying human nature

yeah, all that does is take certain ideology and raise it wrongly to the level of biological law. if there's no citations to particular alleles, I don't see the 'natural' connection.

again: why no wage incentive? most people in the world work for wages. how is that not an incentive?

regarding the anecdote: I'm not saying it's wrong, but generalizing from it won't assist us.

[Suttree]

Also, the argument that assets couldn't have made it in time in help is ludicrous, given they had no idea what the duration of the attack would be.

Ah ahaha. Apparently you're a big enough Gowdy fanboi that you just regurgitate his inane sound bites. Seriously even asking Coomodore to back up his claims is already conceding far too much in the discussion. It's clear there he is just going to continue to make shit up as he goes.

[DanteGabriel]

Ah ahaha. Apparently you're a big enough Gowdy fanboi that you just regurgitate his inane sound bites. Seriously even asking Coomodore to back up his claims is already conceding far too much in the discussion. It's clear there he is just going to continue to make shit up as he goes.

Making shit up would at least be entertaining. Endlessly repeating stale attack points from Fox News is boring, but Commodore's consistency in this method is worthy of recognition, I guess.

[The Undead Martyr]

For a person to improve their productivity rather than doing just enough to not get thrown in prison or starve, you have to give them some kind of incentive that can improve their situation. Otherwise you are simply denying human nature...or animal nature. While most animals have some form of social initiative to help their group, ALL animals are at least partially motivated by self interest to improve their situation and that of their offspring. Humans are no different. In order to improve productivity and foster creativity(i.e. inventions, technological advancements, etc) you have to give an incentive for workers to give effort and you need incentive for the great minds to separate themselves from the rest. Full blown communism has always encountered this issue and always will(outside of maybe the military industry). Sir Thomas More's Utopia sounds great, but it's not reality. It's not possible, unless you change the very nature of humanity. The USSR tried to counter this with punishment, the equivalent of lighting a fire under somebody's ass, but this will only make a person put forth enough effort to not get burned.

As for my anecdote about the iron curtain, it wasn't just my friend's situation. The way he describes it, that was the norm. The way he tells it, if you had a defect like his the state was more likely to let nature take its course than waste resources on you unless your father was an officer or researcher. The every day life was a struggle for his family and everybody he knew.

This is, quite frankly, wrong.

"Human nature" is the product of a complex dialectic between the extant social fabric and one's role as an individual consciousness. Our identities are overwhelmingly shaped by our surroundings- the very thoughts you think, the language with which you think and speak, to the collection of cognitive bias' that we all carry.

To speak of "human nature" then is a misnomer- note that for the vast majority of human existence we lived in nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, a sort of primitive communism- it is sedentary civilization that is the aberration. Also "self interest" is far from the sole human motivator and indeed I'd argue that it is not the primary motivator- like all creatures our primary biological motive is not "self-interest" but the propagation of our progeny, that is our children/family come first most of the time. Additionally much of what we do is in the context of our social niche- when you speak of greed you are using shorthand for the collection of social norms we have been conditioned to value- such as the material accumulation of wealth, which represents social status and physical security for ourselves and our families. The current wage labor system is about two hundred years old; alternatives have existed, and do exist. Finally the capitalist "Work Ethic" accentuates the "selfish" outlook, whereas it is easy to envision a more collective ethos- that is society has determined both the nature of "greed" and the socially acceptable outlets for such.

It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society.

Additionally the lower classes do not have the autonomy you seem to believe- it always irks me when states' rights people bilthely suggest that individuals who are disadvantaged by state legislation simply move to another state- such an extreme action is economically and socially daunting and beyond the easy means of many. Likewise under the current system there is no incentive to provide full employment- on the contrary the upper classes benefit from having an army of unemployed waiting in the wings. Is the threat of starvation and destitution a good motivator? Certainly, but it is far from the only one.

[awesome possum]

Obama is planning some more treasonous, unAmerican evildoings... I mean executive actions:

President Obama will announce on Friday a handful of executive actions and private and nonprofit groups’ investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The initiatives will not amount to much in terms of energy policy or their impact on global warming. But they are part of a broader campaign to build public support for an Environmental Protection Agency rule that the White House will unveil in June. The rule, which has already run into objections, will limit carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants and is expected to create a major new market for zero-carbon energy from sources like wind and solar.

...

The White House estimates that together, the executive actions will spur private companies to invest an additional $2 billion in energy efficiency, and will cut carbon pollution by more than 380 million metric tons — the equivalent of taking 80 million cars off the road for one year.

The White House will also announce that several housing developments will voluntarily increase their use of solar power.

What a power-mad monster!

Also, since the GOP is going all-in on BENGHAZI!! (™ Fox News) they may be giving up or at least silently conceding defeat in the ACA fight:

1. Republicans appeared disinterested in attacking Obamacare during a key confirmation hearing.

hough Republican strategists warned that Sylvia Burwell’s confirmation to head the Department of Health and Human Services would be used to re-litigate Obamacare, the OMB director sailed through her first hearing at the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, eliciting praise from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and winning the support of Sen Richard Burr (R-NC).

2. Republicans struck out trying to embarrass the administration over Obamacare and then gave up

One insurance company CEO even observed that while President Obama’s claim that if you like your health insurance plan you can keep it did not apply to everyone, the promise held true for “99 percent of our customers.” As The Hill observed, “Republicans were visibly exasperated as insurers failed to confirm certain assumptions about ObamaCare” and many simply exited the hearing.

3. Republicans have shifted their attention to Benghazi and the IRS.

GOP leaders have promised to back away from repeal in the past – only to walk them back in response to conservative pressure. But with support for the Tea Party dwindling among Republicans, 80 percent of primary filing deadlines behind them, and a growing number of GOP lawmakers coming face to face with Obamacare beneficiaries, the party may focus on reforming rather than repealing the law.

[1918me]

Obama is planning some more treasonous, unAmerican evildoings... I mean executive actions:

What a power-mad monster!

Also, since the GOP is going all-in on BENGHAZI!! (™ Fox News) they may be giving up or at least silently conceding defeat in the ACA fight:

The energy thing is great to hear! Not the GOP reaction, obviously, but what can you expect?

Also, why I'm glad to hear that they seem to backing off on the ACA, I fail to understand how BENGHAZI!!is supposed to be any more fruitful. I mean, they both lend themselves to tired talking points about issues that many Americans don't understand in their entirety, so what's the difference?

[Phaing]

The energy thing is great to hear! Not the GOP reaction, obviously, but what can you expect?

What, in the last 2 hours?

Talk about impatient... but not being GOP, I guess I'll pass and just say "Yay, another Solyndra!"

Also, why I'm glad to hear that they seem to backing off on the ACA

Probably just waiting until 100 million people get booted from their plans after the election... unless Obama pushes it back again.

3. Republicans have shifted their attention to Benghazi and the IRS.

I think they should concentrate on the IRS, unless they don't want to win that one, and use it themsevles down the line somewhere.

Obama is really showing us how when it comes to Dictatorial powers in the US.

And if you think your enemies will just let it slide, your nuts.

[aceluby]

Inigima,

That made me laugh so hard people are giving me funny looks.

:)

Me too!

[armidil0]

Obama? Dictator? I guess elections are canceled then.

[awesome possum]

The energy thing is great to hear! Not the GOP reaction, obviously, but what can you expect?

Also, why I'm glad to hear that they seem to backing off on the ACA, I fail to understand how BENGHAZI!!is supposed to be any more fruitful. I mean, they both lend themselves to tired talking points about issues that many Americans don't understand in their entirety, so what's the difference?

I'm thinking its because millions of Americans are seeing the ACA work for them whereas with BENGHAZI!! it's not so cut and dry. You can discover that there is no cover up and conspiracy through a couple minutes of Google searching, but unless you do that it's basically information coming in via the he-said/she-said spectrum.

And because the Republican party is starting to shift their focus from hating everything Obama to destroying Hillary ahead of 2016, which they seem to believe BENGHAZI!! is their ace in the hole.

The energy thing is great to hear! Not the GOP reaction, obviously, but what can you expect?

What, in the last 2 hours?

Talk about impatient... but not being GOP, I guess I'll pass and just say "Yay, another Solyndra!"

Also, why I'm glad to hear that they seem to backing off on the ACA

Probably just waiting until 100 million people get booted from their plans after the election... unless Obama pushes it back again.

3. Republicans have shifted their attention to Benghazi and the IRS.

I think they should concentrate on the IRS, unless they don't want to win that one, and use it themsevles down the line somewhere.

Obama is really showing us how when it comes to Dictatorial powers in the US.

And if you think your enemies will just let it slide, your nuts.

When you make Commodore's posts look good by comparison, you are not doing a good job of getting ... whatever it is you're trying to get across.

[Inigima]

"Dictator" might be hyperbolic, but I think it's hard to dispute that the Obama administration has attempted to significantly expand the authority of the executive branch, at the expense of legislative. Not that legislative is currently showing any great competencies.

[aceluby]

Obama? Dictator? I guess elections are canceled then.

It really depends on the subject, it seems that the far right can't get their memes to be consistent. On one hand he's a 'community organizer' who is ineffectual and inept in his duties, on the other hand he's a dictator out to control the US and never give up his power, only wanting to become emperor of the world. Only sane people see that he can't be both, yet depending on the Faux Snooze talking point of the day, it's coin flip as to how he will be portrayed on any single day.

[aceluby]

"Dictator" might be hyperbolic, but I think it's hard to dispute that the Obama administration has attempted to significantly expand the authority of the executive branch, at the expense of legislative. Not that legislative is currently showing any great competencies.

I don't know about 'expanding' the power in all but a few cases, but he sure isn't giving up any power that was taken by previous administrations.

[DanteGabriel]

"Dictator" might be hyperbolic, but I think it's hard to dispute that the Obama administration has attempted to significantly expand the authority of the executive branch, at the expense of legislative. Not that legislative is currently showing any great competencies.

I dislike executive power creep, but it's been going on since at least FDR. And with a Congress this determined to either do nothing or to actively hurt the country and blame it on Obama, it seems the only sane choice.

[armidil0]

Yeah, it's like the Republican party wants the executive branch to become really powerful by making sure the other branches of government can't do anything. Then screaming dictator, even though he hasn't actually expanded a whole lot, but better utilized what the previous office holders got.

I'm against the idea of a very strong executive, but I also realize there's really no other way if things keep getting this clogged up.

And as much and nice it would be to fight fire with fire, when the Dems are the minority I hope they choose to not do what the Repubs are doing today.

[TrackerNeil]

I dislike executive power creep, but it's been going on since at least FDR. And with a Congress this determined to either do nothing or to actively hurt the country and blame it on Obama, it seems the only sane choice.

Let's also keep in mind that Congress is free to rein in executive power any time it wishes, and it doesn't need presidential buy-in to do it.

[DanteGabriel]

Let's also keep in mind that Congress is free to rein in executive power any time it wishes, and it doesn't need presidential buy-in to do it.

Yes, but they have so many more important issues to tackle, like Benghazi, and apparently Comcast's conspiracy to spread Sharia law to America.

(It takes a truly epic moron like Louie Gohmert to make a Comcast executive look even slightly sympathetic.)