29 replies to this topic

[redlion]

In the spoiler I've included a basic outline of the topics covered.

Spoiler

Job creation: American Manufacturing
- 180k jobs in auto industry
- Detroit is back!

Trade enforcement unit
- unfair trade practices in countries like China (esp. with currency & state owned enterprise)
- ACTA counterfeit goods

Skills for jobs
- vocational training, apprenticeships, etc(?) community colleges -> community career centers
- Unemployment -> re-employment
- Stay in school until you graduate or turn 18
- enabling schools to pay teachers more, and pay better teachers most (pandering?)

Immigration reform
- Notice that John McCain didn't applaud like a lil' bitch

American made energy
- Open more than 75% of our offshore oil and gas resources
- highest domestic oil production in 8 years
- last year we relied less on foreign oil than the last 16 years
- Clean energy is the next revolution, and public research funds were necessary

"Nation building right here at home!"
- Construction projects (vague)

smarter regulations
- Fewer regulations passed than W in first three years.
- passed 500 reforms cutting red tape (ambiguous)
- not backing down on oil spills, HMO regs or mercury in toys (for example)
- Consumer financial protection bureau

Tax reform
- Buffet Rule - no millionaire pays less than 30% income tax
- Close tax loopholes for corporations
- tax incentives for millionaires should go the way of the derigible
- ban insider trading by congressmen, stockholding by congressman with an affecting role on industry

Foreign policy
- Afghanistan (???)
- yay free Libya
- Assad in aSyria will respond to popular sentiment
- Iran's nuclear program (sanctions, options open)
- the reform of Burma/Myanmar
- We got Osama bin Laden!!!

TY, GBY, & GBtUSA

Let's see... I think it would be easier to say what I don't agree with, rather than what I do.

I don't agree with ACTA, which was discussed thinly veiled as a 'trade enforcement unit', tasked with preventing unfair trade practices. That was intentionally vague, and not really saying much at all.

I don't agree with requiring students to stay in school until they get a diploma or until 18 - that's rhetoric and not an actionable statement. School isn't for everyone.

I don't agree with opening 75% of our offshore oil reserves to drilling - I think the risks are high, I think the price of oil is manageable presently, and I think we should save those resources for when we need them for something other than gasoline.

Thoughts? Concerns? Agreements or fanatic opposition? I'm not going to talk about the Republican response at all, but feel free to address it if you like.

[Bone]

I haven't watched the speech yet, but I'm dubious about Detroit being 'back'. I live in one of the surrounding suburbs (white flight :|) and the city of Detroit itself is anything but 'back'. I'll have more to say once I actually see it.

[Drakonid]

I'm not sure if I should count "we got Osama Bin Laden" as something good, or bad...

[punkrockbigmouth]

I liked what he had to say. I enjoy the idea of progress and a better tomorrow. I work hard, and I just want what's best for everyone. I wish people would get better education, with just the tiniest hope that I will no longer be surrounded by idiots. He said some great things, but I know nothing will become of any of it because it has fallen on deaf ears. There is too much greed and self-serving in America, and no amount of education or renewable energy will remedy that.
I'll just go about my everyday life and hope the guy at Home Depot will help me find the right sized lightbulb.

 

[redlion]

Drakonid, on 24 January 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

I'm not sure if I should count "we got Osama Bin Laden" as something good, or bad...

Err, what? The dude killed civilians by crashing planes into skyscrapers. What part of that is good?

[Drakonid]

Quote

Article 8.

• Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

• (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
• (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

I'm so glad I left that tab open from the other thread...

Edited by Drakonid, 24 January 2012 - 08:39 PM.

[redlion]

It isn't always possible to capture people. Surely you can't expect a member of the armed services to stare down the barrel of an AK-47 and NOT fire first.

He was given a full Islamic funeral at sea. He was given numerous attempts to surrender himself. I don't see anything wrong with their actions.

[rhexis07]

And I think that only applies to American citizens, if you're not American you get NO RIGHTS!

[Drakonid]

It's not possible to always capture people, indeed...
But what right did the American government have to capture him?

[Adam]

Drakonid, on 24 January 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

It's not possible to always capture people, indeed...
But what right did the American government have to capture him?

The American military has been seen as the 'worlds police' for quite some time now. The police force is there to protect and serve the people. The man who used women, children, men and basically anything that moves as bombs had to be brought down. This is a person who at any given moment would put a bullet in your head as soon as he found out any one of us were: English, Americans, Spaniards etc.

[rhexis07]

Drakonid, on 24 January 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

It's not possible to always capture people, indeed...
But what right did the American government have to capture him?

There was a warrant for his arrest under "probable cause" and thereafter he would've had a right to a trial. However upon resisting arrest (shooting), it is within the rights of the attempted captors to shoot him.

[Drakonid]

Adam, on 24 January 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

The American military has been seen as the 'worlds police' for quite some time now. The police force is there to protect and serve the people. The man who used women, children, men and basically anything that moves as bombs had to be brought down. This is a person who at any given moment would put a bullet in your head as soon as he found out any one of us were: English, Americans, Spaniards etc.

YOU see yourselves as the world's police. ktnhxbai.

rhexis07, on 24 January 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

There was a warrant for his arrest under "probable cause" and thereafter he would've had a right to a trial. However upon resisting arrest (shooting), it is within the rights of the attempted captors to shoot him.

issued by?

[Adam]

Drakonid, on 24 January 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

YOU see yourselves as the world's police. ktnhxbai.

Rewind a few months, somehow walk straight up to Osama. I can guarantee that you won't last more then a minute. Unless of course, he's going to keep you just barely alive.

[rhexis07]

Drakonid, on 24 January 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

YOU see yourselves as the world's police. ktnhxbai.



issued by?

Supreme Court of the USA, the land upon which he attacked; if he didn't commit the crime, he would have presumably been acquitted of all charges once he stood trial. But by resisting arrest, the troops were within their rights to shoot him.

[Drakonid]

Adam, I see no point in answering, as you're not making any sense.

rhexis: That's when I go back to the declaration of human rights. Did you even read the quoted articles?

[Adam]

Drakonid, on 24 January 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Adam, I see no point in answering, as you're not making any sense.

rhexis: That's when I go back to the declaration of human rights. Did you even read the quoted articles?

Shoot the motherfucker, save thousands of lives. It's pretty simple if you ask me, I think you're still angry from the other thread.
My last comment in here..he violated many peoples rights by taking their lives from them.

Edited by Adam, 24 January 2012 - 09:21 PM.

[Drakonid]

The other thread were you made as little sense as this one? Yup, really angry.

[Adam]

Drakonid, on 24 January 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

The other thread were you made as little sense as this one? Yup, really angry.

Maybe you're just too closed minded to want to read/hear anyone else's opinions.

It's spelled 'where' by the way.

[rhexis07]

Drakonid, on 24 January 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

The other thread were you made as little sense as this one? Yup, really angry.

If he didn't resist arrest, he would have stood trial. When you resist arrest, it is completely legal to get shot, that is international law. Learn it.

[Drakonid]

>The guy claiming that shooting people solves problem accuses other of being closed minded and then feels smart for pointing out a typo.

rhexis:
Article 9.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Edited by Drakonid, 24 January 2012 - 09:27 PM.

[rhexis07]

Drakonid, on 24 January 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

>The guy claiming that shooting people solves problem accuses other of being closed minded and then feels smart for pointing out a typo.

rhexis:
Article 9.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Him and his group claimed responsibility through a video released I believe 3 days after the events of 9/11.

EDIT: apparently it was 2 weeks after the events according to Wikipedia.

Edited by rhexis07, 24 January 2012 - 09:29 PM.

[Rikku]

1. This is already getting off topic, and we're not even off the first page yet.

2. As glad as I was to see Osama die, I would of enjoyed even more seeing him get publicly executed. He should of been made an example of, not quietly killed and then the whole thing covered up.

3. As far at the SOTU goes, it's nothing new. I'm just thinking back to last year's speech, and realizing how many of the things that were promised or talked about never came to fruition. Yes, it was a great speech, filled with hope, and promises, however the reality is, this country is still suffering, and a lot of the things that were mentioned won't happen, and if they will it won't be for years to come. Again, if hope is what people need, then he definitely delivered, but for those of us who want action, and want it now.... well.... i'm not going to hold my breath. And before anyone starts ripping me a new one, I am fully aware of the fact that he can't do it alone, Congress needs to cooperate, which we all know will never happen.

[MsRose]

"last year we relied less on foreign oil than the last 16 years"

So...we can expect gas prices to go down when exactly? Driving 30 miles to school is making my poor piggy bank nervous.

Not too much to complain about imo. I would have liked to see a little bit more on how we're going to manage our deficit and debt, but hey we can't have it all can we?

Edited by MsRose, 24 January 2012 - 09:48 PM.

[iargue]

Drakonid, on 24 January 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

YOU see yourselves as the world's police. ktnhxbai.



issued by?

Actually, The world sees us as their police.

Its so kind and nice to blame us and say that we are doing all of this stupid shit, when in fact, we where asked to do it. When the United Nations asks you to invade Iraq.... its kinda not on our hands anymore. We where asked to step in and enforce sanctions that they placed on iraq, and ensure that they did not have any weapons of Mass Destruction. Osama Bin Ladin was wanted in over 100 countries, and a known terrorist.

Its so nice to see so many people int he world upset over the fact that a person who's claimed responsibility for thousands of peoples lives was killed. I'm guessing your also pissed that we interfered with World War 2? How dare we go in and help stop Hitler, who cares if hes killing people by the thousands.

I do not think we should have gone into iraq. Not because it wasn't the right thing to do, but because we continue to help those who ask us, while they hate on us and condemn us for doing it. Its a stupid policy, but we seem to keep it up forever.

Rikku, on 24 January 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

1. This is already getting off topic, and we're not even off the first page yet.

2. As glad as I was to see Osama die, I would of enjoyed even more seeing him get publicly executed. He should of been made an example of, not quietly killed and then the whole thing covered up.

3. As far at the SOTU goes, it's nothing new. I'm just thinking back to last year's speech, and realizing how many of the things that were promised or talked about never came to fruition. Yes, it was a great speech, filled with hope, and promises, however the reality is, this country is still suffering, and a lot of the things that were mentioned won't happen, and if they will it won't be for years to come. Again, if hope is what people need, then he definitely delivered, but for those of us who want action, and want it now.... well.... i'm not going to hold my breath. And before anyone starts ripping me a new one, I am fully aware of the fact that he can't do it alone, Congress needs to cooperate, which we all know will never happen.

There are plenty of things that he -can- do though.

He is in charge of the entire government. He can cut programs, erase entire sections of the government. He promised to reduce government spending, and he actually has the power to do so. He can remove departments, and require others to cut back their spending. He has plenty of power over that section.

I'm so tired of politicians promising that they will "Lower taxes and reducing spending to cover it" when in reality they don't have a plan. Its always an empty and broken promise. I want someone to be like, "This program, and this program, and this program. Can all be cut" When that person comes along. I'll vote for them. Until then, no one gets my vote. They are all the same.

Drakonid, on 24 January 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

>The guy claiming that shooting people solves problem accuses other of being closed minded and then feels smart for pointing out a typo.

rhexis:
Article 9.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Shooting a murderer does actually resolve that problem. Dead people can't kill.

[Stitches]

Are we really arguing over the legitimacy of the death of Bin Laden... Really.

He founded and was the head of (or at least figurehead) of an organization that recruits and trains people to commit acts of war against civilians in an attempt to terrorize and overpower people and governments who oppose their radical beliefs and politics. This organization, under his lead, committed atrocities globally which resulted in the deaths of thousands.

I would have liked to see him taken peacefully and put on trial with the International Criminal Court as well, however given the circumstances the chance of that happening were 0.000001%.

I am for the most part a pacifist, was completely against the war in Iraq, and even I'm happy that he's no longer a threat to world security. Al Qaeda is still around, but as a result of his death and the capture and death of other leading figures, they've lost much of their central organization and a lot of resources and power. I don't see how you wouldn't be, unless you believe al Qaeda and their acts of terrorism are just giant government conspiracies, in which case I don't think a rational discussion is possible.

iargue, on 24 January 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

Its so kind and nice to blame us and say that we are doing all of this stupid shit, when in fact, we where asked to do it. When the United Nations asks you to invade Iraq.... its kinda not on our hands anymore. We where asked to step in and enforce sanctions that they placed on iraq, and ensure that they did not have any weapons of Mass Destruction.

If I remember correctly the UN actually condemned the Iraq invasion. UN weapon inspectors looked for WMDs and didn't find any, or any evidence that any were being made or had been being made in a decade. Iraq also had no connections to al-Qaeda. The US under Bush went ahead and invaded against the will of the UN on the premise that Saddam may have been making weapons or could in the future, which was basically a thinly veiled excuse to gain control of their oil supply.

Via wikipedia-

Spoiler

[The Iraq War] began with the invasion of Iraq by the United States under the administration of President George W. Bush and the United Kingdom under Prime Minister Tony Blair. Prior to the invasion, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that the possibility of Iraq employing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threatened their security and that of their coalition/regional allies. In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that it was not in possession of weapons of mass destruction and cruise missiles. The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was given access by Iraq under provisions of the UN resolution but found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. ...
Following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical, and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion but that Iraq intended to resume production once sanctions were lifted. Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been the main argument to justify the invasion. Some U.S. officials also accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda, but no evidence of a meaningful connection was ever found.

... There were serious legal questions surrounding the launching of the war against Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war in general. On September 16, 2004, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the Charter point of view, it was illegal."

iargue, on 24 January 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

He is in charge of the entire government. He can cut programs, erase entire sections of the government. He promised to reduce government spending, and he actually has the power to do so. He can remove departments, and require others to cut back their spending. He has plenty of power over that section.

You're actually incorrect. This is a huge misconception. Pretty much everything is required to go through Congress and the Senate before the President signs them into law. If he doesn't sign it, the process starts over again, or Congress can override the decision and put it into law anyway if they have enough support (two thirds majority in each house- Congress does have veto power). Basically if something has overwhelming support and the President still doesn't sign it, it can go ahead anyway.

There are tons of checks and balances in place to prevent anyone, President included, from making sweeping decisions like erasing sections of government or arbitrarily deciding laws. If he just decided "We're cutting A, B, and C, and reallocating funds from B to D" without going through the proper process, he'd be impeached the next day. It makes everything take forever to get done but it also preserves some thread of legitimacy.

Edited by Stitches, 24 January 2012 - 10:29 PM.