If You Were The President,Would You Done Anything Differently So Far?

While I feel that bailouts are contrary to the point of capitalism (survival of the fittest) government intervention in affairs that aren't necessarily their business is necessary at times. Look at the Great Depression. Hoover did very little until the very end of his presidency, and is now remembered as a president who let the American people down. FDR took the opposite approach and is remembered as one of the top 3 presidents of all time.
 
retro junkie said:
Yes. There would have been no bailouts. ;)
Click to expand...

Its funny how quickly people forget.

When the stock market crashed the bailout was proposed in the senate and debated over for several days, at which time people outright condemned any deliberation over what was seen as a necessary bill. Obama even gave a speech in which he explained that debating over the terms of the bailout was a good thing, and that while he had no doubt the bill would eventually pass he had concerns over the terms under which it would pass. The bailout was ratified long before Obama was even president, so unless you're interpreting Kaz's question to equate "The President" with "George W. Bush" then I don't really know if what you say is valid.

Of course, you did leave a winking smiley face, so I suppose I shouldn't have analyzed your statement too critically. :D

I would have charged senior members of the previous administration with war crimes. I realize there are more pressing and meaningful issues at the moment, but I certainly wouldn't have simply said "what's done is done," shrugged my shoulders, and left it at that. Innocent torture victims deserve a little justice I would think.
 
Really and truthfully, when it comes to the bailouts, it has only prolonged the possible death of some of the big auto industries. The problem that no one is buying their stuff still exists even months later and hasn't really changed. No one has really stopped the bleeding and we just keep pumping.
The banks are still holding on to the money.

IMO,If you charge the members of the previous administration with war crimes then you would have to include most of the ones that are currently in congress, including Pelosi. Since they were basically in charge then, as they are now.
 
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm
Click to expand...

I think that torture, while a morally dubious tactic, is still a legitimate one when we are dealing with terrorists.
 
In general, I would have spent A LOT less (2 trillion dollar deficit on this year's budget), but other than that, he has done a pretty good job so far.

stealth toilet said:
Its funny how quickly people forget.

When the stock market crashed the bailout was proposed in the senate and debated over for several days, at which time people outright condemned any deliberation over what was seen as a necessary bill. Obama even gave a speech in which he explained that debating over the terms of the bailout was a good thing, and that while he had no doubt the bill would eventually pass he had concerns over the terms under which it would pass. The bailout was ratified long before Obama was even president, so unless you're interpreting Kaz's question to equate "The President" with "George W. Bush" then I don't really know if what you say is valid.
Click to expand...

There have been a lot of bailouts. That was just the biggest one. The auto industry, AIG (four or five separate times if I remember correctly), and a trillion dollar + bill to stabilize and revitalize the banking industry (not quite a bailout, but pretty close). Most of these were necessary, however. The only one I would really question was the bailout of the bit three.

retro junkie said:
Really and truthfully, when it comes to the bailouts, it has only prolonged the possible death of some of the big auto industries. The problem that no one is buying their stuff still exists even months later and hasn't really changed. No one has really stopped the bleeding and we just keep pumping.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. GM and Chrysler have finally started to downsize and are coming closer to sustainability (although bankruptcy probably would have made this happen a lot faster).

retro junkie said:
The banks are still holding on to the money.
Click to expand...

Over the last few months, banks have been lending more readily. Liquidity is slowly returning.

retro junkie said:
IMO,If you charge the members of the previous administration with war crimes then you would have to include most of the ones that are currently in congress, including Pelosi. Since they were basically in charge then, as they are now.
Click to expand...

The thing is, the CIA and NSA are agencies of the executive branch of government. They are predominantly controlled by the executive branch, and therefore, the president. In reality, Congress has little power over the organizations and did not have knowledge of the torture programs they were running.

SpartanEvolved said:
I think that torture, while a morally dubious tactic, is still a legitimate one when we are dealing with terrorists.
Click to expand...

But it is not necessarily a very effective one. Information gained through torture is not reliable a significant portion of the time. When you put someone in that much pain, they will say anything to make it stop, and anything is frequently whatever they can make up. Up until 2000, torture had not been used for 40 years for just that reason: it produced unreliable information, at best.
 
Yes, I would establish TACO TUESDAYS! Tacos for everyone!
I would establish that nobody should work on a Sunday for not just religious rights, but everyone should not suffer that hellish nightmare!
I would make sure every Friday night, something is on TV and/or decrease the price of movie tickets! MOVIES ARE TOO EXPENSIVE! $8.25 for a popcorn and drink? SCREW THAT!
I would make it illegal for people to text message while on the freakin road!
I would it make it illegal for people to eat while driving!

VOTE MEGA! VOTE TRUE! 8)
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
But it is not necessarily a very effective one. Information gained through torture is not reliable a significant portion of the time. When you put someone in that much pain, they will say anything to make it stop, and anything is frequently whatever they can make up. Up until 2000, torture had not been used for 40 years for just that reason: it produced unreliable information, at best.
Click to expand...

SpartanEvolved said:
I know torture isn't necessarily the best method, but it is a method and it has produced results before (see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed)
Click to expand...

Its relative effectiveness doesn't matter, it's universally recognized as immoral, regardless of who is on the receiving end. That alone should prevent us from using it, unless we no longer consider ourselves bound by any moral code, under which circumstances our enemies are correct in their assessment of us and have every right to wage war with us.

Its not a matter of will it get results or won't it. We're talking about torturing people, torture. If our survival requires us to become beasts of savagery towards other human beings, then physical death becomes the far superior option.
 
"To protect the sheep you gotta catch the wolf, and it takes a wolf to catch a wolf. " You might be right in saying that if we have to lower ourselves to defeat our enemies, we have lost anyways (not your exact words, but I believe that statement coincides with your point). However, I believe that winning and survival are priorities above maintaining the moral high ground. To me, being right means nothing if you are dead. I agree that in a perfect world, we could defeat our enemies without having to sink to morally dubious tactics to do so. However, we do not live in a perfect world and when our enemies refuse to play by any sort of ethical rules we are merely hamstringing ourselves by playing by a strict moral code.

I may sound like a ruthless "fatherless person" in my argument that the ends justify the means, but I am just trying to look at things from a realistic perspective. I only care about the lives of my countrymen (and other free people around the world) and frankly, if protecting even the most insignificant person in my country meant waterboarding a thousand terrorists (or much, much worse) I would vote to do it in a heartbeat.
 
SpartanEvolved said:
"To protect the sheep you gotta catch the wolf, and it takes a wolf to catch a wolf. "
Click to expand...

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew, 10:16

SpartanEvolved said:
I only care about the lives of my countrymen (and other free people around the world) and frankly, if protecting even the most insignificant person in my country meant waterboarding a thousand terrorists (or much, much worse) I would vote to do it in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

"Hatred will not cease by hatred, but by love alone. This is the ancient law.

All fear violence, all are afraid of death.
Seeing the similarity to oneself, one should not use violence or have it used." Buddha (Siddharta Gautama)

SpartanEvolved said:
I agree that in a perfect world, we could defeat our enemies without having to sink to morally dubious tactics to do so. However, we do not live in a perfect world and when our enemies refuse to play by any sort of ethical rules we are merely hamstringing ourselves by playing by a strict moral code.
Click to expand...

"Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr.

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." Mahatma Ghandi

SpartanEvolved said:
To me, being right means nothing if you are dead.
Click to expand...

To me, being alive means nothing if it is at the expense of everything worth living for. It is better to be sentenced to death for one's love, than to be permitted to live for one's cruelty. There is nobility in sacrificing one's life for one's peaceful beliefs, but there is none found in sacrificing one's peaceful beliefs for the continuation of one's life.
 
Well Spartan I am with you, but I don't want to be quoted with a bunch of quotes so I'll just leave it at that ;)
 
stealth toilet said:
Its relative effectiveness doesn't matter, it's universally recognized as immoral, regardless of who is on the receiving end. That alone should prevent us from using it, unless we no longer consider ourselves bound by any moral code, under which circumstances our enemies are correct in their assessment of us and have every right to wage war with us.

Its not a matter of will it get results or won't it. We're talking about torturing people, torture. If our survival requires us to become beasts of savagery towards other human beings, then physical death becomes the far superior option.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely.

SpartanEvolved said:
"To protect the sheep you gotta catch the wolf, and it takes a wolf to catch a wolf. " You might be right in saying that if we have to lower ourselves to defeat our enemies, we have lost anyways (not your exact words, but I believe that statement coincides with your point). However, I believe that winning and survival are priorities above maintaining the moral high ground. To me, being right means nothing if you are dead. I agree that in a perfect world, we could defeat our enemies without having to sink to morally dubious tactics to do so. However, we do not live in a perfect world and when our enemies refuse to play by any sort of ethical rules we are merely hamstringing ourselves by playing by a strict moral code.
Click to expand...

But again, sinking to this low level is not all that effective. Ever since 9/11 there has been this false dichotomy spreading that either we lose the moral high ground and act as our enemies act, or jeopardize our safety. The fact is that this just is not the case. Torture has not been demonstrated to be any more effective than persuasion (which, surprisingly enough, works frequently), often produces false information (in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, almost all of his confessions have been challenged by some psychological professional, or outright disproven by other information we know), and probably does a lot more to propagate terrorism than stop it. Why bring ourselves down to our level when all it will do is give them propaganda to use against us, while producing unreliable and often outright false information?
 
Isn't it SAD that a Canadian knows about our politics more than his own country's? Just throwing it out there man...no offense Stealth, kudos to your debate...but I for one, feel ashamed for not being true to understanding politics. Yet Cherry brings the pain, so thank you Cherry for making it so much better for the rest of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top