Could you elaborate on this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Printable View
Could you elaborate on this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts and following the accompanying links before trying to refute what you think I posted. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
A direct quote from the US Ambassador to the UN and an accompanying link to ABC- not Fox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
No, not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Which is the exact question I asked @Vladimir. If it's a conspiracy, cui bono?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
That's an awful lot of information from inside the President's brain. And as an explanation, it relies on him being remarkably stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I could at great length - but in brief:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Everything about US politics is geared towards the two parties - the primaries, the way the seats are arranged in the House, the little R's and D's they put before the people's names in front of their seats, the change to the Constitution so that the candidates run on double tickets, and the fact that both Houses are chaired by partisan actors...
Even the design of the Houses encourages a two-part mentality, by the way the desks are arranged.
It's not virtually impossible for a "third Party" to breakout at the Federal level because in order to be taken seriously you have to already be at the Federal level.
I'm English, our system is flat out designed for two parties, almost explicitly, certainly for two sides (in power and not) but we still have a more plural system than you.
What are you referring to? The rest is pure fluff, but this is intriguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Look it up - you'll be shocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
@Lemur
Conspiracy? Really? Are you that unfamiliar with politics and politicians that you can't understand why they'd use deception for their benefit? I really can't explain it to you better than others here already have.
Just as I suspected. Your argument begs the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Eeeeh....you see your problem here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Yes and yes. I'm curious why you think he's smart, personally I can't relate to people who watch him give speeches and come away with that impression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Is he talking about the change in the rules about the vice presidency? I don't see what's shocking about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Oh come off it, fine if you're too lazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
They changed the Constitution so that the Presidential nominees could pick a VP, rather than the VP being the runner up in the election - which actually makes infinitely more sense, given that he's the Speaker of the Senate.
Now ask yourself why every child is taught about that amendment in school.
As to the rest, it's not "fluff" because it's about perception and perception is the only thing that matters in an election.
That makes no sense whatsoever. If the vice president was radically different then they won't work well together in the white house and assassination becomes many times more viable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Why don't you summarise, in under three sentences - because the riots aren't about the video, so Obama is right about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I do - and if you think about it you will too.Quote:
Is he talking about the change in the rules about the vice presidency? I don't see what's shocking about that.
Think harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
This is the point I am making about your system - look back at the elections prior to the change, see how the system was meant to work.
The elections of washington were basically uncontested if I remember correctly. I think originally we hoped there would be no "faction" but it turned out there was. You can't have a system that assumes no faction when there are very bitterly opposed factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I'm not sure why you are appealing to any "original" meaning as if that's better.
He's been associating the riots and even the killings with the video practically non stop. And for him, if it's not about the video specifically its about a history of things like the video, which is also faulty. So you are saying that he's wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
You are correct - Washington's election was effectively uncontested (the other were jostling for VP) but John Adams' election was not, and he and Jefferson managed not to kill each other despite being bitter political rivals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
The point is - there was always conflict but the reforms that have been enacted have entrenched it.
after all - lots of countries have managed with Premiers and Vices from different parties - we have that situation in the UK now, and we won World War II with the same arrangement.
I'm not saying it shouldn't have been changed - I'm saying look at the change made - look at the double ticket.
The video triggered it, but it's not about the video - I realise that's a nuanced point, but it's not that complicated.Quote:
He's been associating the riots and even the killings with the video practically non stop. And for him, if it's not about the video specifically its about a history of things like the video, which is also faulty. So you are saying that he's wrong.
The video is the smokescreen that the bourgeoise use in order to exploit the proletariat.
YOU FOOLS
For the third and final time, what is the benefit? I don't know how to be any clearer about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Just because you posit that our President is an idiot hamstrung by ego and ideology—and explain everything related to Washington and Libya on this premise—it does not follow that I am saying the man is a genius. False equivalence is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Look at your post: four paragraphs of telling us what's in Obama's mind, all of it bad. I'm suspicious of any explanation of any phenomena that requires in-depth, detailed knowledge of another person's brain. You're neither thick nor slow, so you can see why I find such a premise problematic.
Their rivalry was one of the main reasons it was changed. And heck, just look at all the presidents who have died in office (8 I think).Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
A two party system is ideal, so you're going to have be more explicit about what you think is corrupt.
Ideally you have one party who errs on the side of caution and tradition and common sense, and another that mostly agrees but has ideas about how the world is changing and how the older ideas don't fit anymore. This works as long as you have an ok starting tradition. Essentially you would have all moderates. The important thing in politics is to keep radicals at a minimum. I for one am happy that the "BUILD A WALL ACROSS THE WHOLE BORDER" people and the "HAVING "IN GOD WE TRUST" ON OUR PENNIES IS OPPRESSION" people are kept in positions of minimal leverage.
Our problems are when our "common sense" traditions are faulty, and when radicals (left-liberals and libertarians usually) puke their ideology all over the place.
He has consistently made it about the video. Goodness.Quote:
The video triggered it, but it's not about the video - I realise that's a nuanced point, but it's not that complicated.
And the video didn't trigger the protests, and certainly not the killings, as he suggests in that clip and has been suggesting.
I said smart, not genius. Anyway, do you think he's smart? Why or why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Define smart?
The man certainly does not challenge any paradigms, although no one who has power inklings ever does/
That is false. The 12th Amendment made electors cast a separate vote for a president and for a vice-president. It was not designed to prop up a two party system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
A two party system is only one step better than a one party system.
Two party systems have a tendency to smother anything that upsets a gravy train. It isn't a system like in law where you have two opposing forces of prosecuter and defender with a judge and jury (arguably a 4 party system).
Two party systems create binary answers to issues, polarizing even simple issues where teamwork makes sense and a very black or white solution set. Have only a hammer and all your problems are nails. Have a two party system and you see through a lens of us vs them.
Some issues in life are that simple, but I'd they are that simple you don't need a specialized leadership to deal with them. You have a specialized leadership to deal with complex problems. Having more then two parties allows voters to more closely vote for a party that represents them the best instead of selecting one out of fear of the other guy.
Most of us wouldn't care how you vote. Except your relationships with foreign nations generally comes across as little more nuanced then "You're with us or against us", have a difference of opinion and it's not a pretty sight.
No - it's the Church trying to control the masses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
What does Presidents dieing in Office have to do with anything? That's only a problem if the VP is a loon from the fringe of the party picked to keep the party cohesive - oh wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
That's a problem with the current system, not the one it replaced.
A two-party system is not ideal because...Quote:
A two party system is ideal, so you're going to have be more explicit about what you think is corrupt.
...you get this. The natural result of two parties is divergence from the mean while the natural result of multiple parties is convergence on topics of common interest.Quote:
Our problems are when our "common sense" traditions are faulty, and when radicals (left-liberals and libertarians usually) puke their ideology all over the place.
The video filtered out - it's on the front of youtube, it triggered the protests the way a spark triggers a blowout in a coal mine.Quote:
He has consistently made it about the video. Goodness.
And the video didn't trigger the protests, and certainly not the killings, as he suggests in that clip and has been suggesting.
It was changed because parties wanted "teams" - if they had sucked it up like proper statesmen you wouldn't have a problem, but they decided to be fractious and have become ever more so since.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
False. Candidates started running in "teams" decades after the amendment was ratified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The Washington Post has put up a timeline of administration statements about the Benghazi attacks and they put forth a motive for why they'd try to hide the fact that it was indeed a terror attack....
I still don't get it. It'd be mind-blowingly stupid to really think they could hide the real progression of events. So did they think they could lessen the fallout by keeping the public on the wrong track for as long as possible? Or are they just mind-blowingly stupid? Or is it something else entirely?Quote:
Originally Posted by WaPo
EDIT:
It just keeps getting better and better. Two weeks later, and the FBI still hasn't gotten onsite to investigate anything. Why? Bureaucratic infighting. From CNN:
Meanwhile, anyone including CNN reporters, can stroll thru the site and sift thru whats left apparently without issue. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN
Odd, what do Hindu temples have to do with the movie, but in Bangladesh people with culture are attacking them.
Leftist people know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with islam. Needs different words, moderate muslims should be classified as 'non-radical' instead of 'moderate' as islam is extreme by nature.
I love this term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I think the administration was in a no-win situation, and would have been criticized either way.
On one hand, you have Obama sort of thinking he repaired muslim-US relations in a few years with some catchy speeches, and to suggest otherwise might bring into question our participation in Libya or passivity in allowing the MB to rise. But I would think that blaming only the film would hurt muslim-US reolations and cause them to digress, as it undermines any and all other causes and makes muslims look like 8 year old throwing a tantrum
You also have a situation that for a terrorist attack, the admin will look folly and incompetent for not being prepared, it was after all, sept 11 which is a fairly obvious day.
Basically, in our no-win political climate, Obama was going to be criticized no matter what position he took. While I find that sad and pathetic, I am not defending the lies. It's not like the lies got more people killed, or was some form of cronyism for profit that we could tangibly point to and assess damages. Rather, it was typical figure head telling typical untruth to guard against typical fallout, all too common IMO. The admin was misguided and buffoonish on this, very amatuer.
Best thing about leftist lingo is that you get to get really sarcasticQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg