SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsModerate Forum


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Skywatcher who wrote (20754)1/25/2011 3:43:45 PM
From: TimF
   of 20773
 
No it isn't everyone, it isn't even vaguely close to everyone.

An accurate statement would be, "it has many prominent supporters from both parties".

But even if it was almost everyone (if it truly was everyone there wouldn't be any controversy, so "almost everyone" is the most even theoretically possible), that wouldn't make your case for you.

Your making multiple unsupported logical leaps. Assuming "almost everyone supports this" doesn't reasonable lead to the conclusion "this is a good idea". Assuming "this is a good idea" doesn't reasonably lead you to "the opponents of this are dishonest, they know its a good idea, but oppose it for selfish reasons only". And even assuming that last, that its only opposed for selfish reasons, doesn't equal "opposing this is treason", or even "almost treasonous". If every special interest objection to a good law, regulation or treaty, and every case of special interest support for laws, regulations, or treaties, that are against the general interest, was treason, the country would be loaded with traitors from all walks of life and from every political ideology or perspective.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (20755)1/25/2011 8:33:17 PM
From: Skywatcher
   of 20773
 
ok, fine...you want the debate class in full session ok...
to me there is little doubt that ALL of these many many experts from both sides of the platform, way of life, job descriptions, etc. supported this treaty for many years. To me that is the world of diplomacy, military, state department, nuclear experts, etc. coming together as 'everyone' to support this treaty. And the clowns that tried at the last minute to gain attention, power, publicity, and all the while trying to embarrass the President and simultaneously putting the entire world BACK in to a more unstable nuclear position is outrageous...and the whole thing was ANTI AMERICAN interests.
done...I will leave it at that
I'm extreme on it...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Skywatcher who wrote (20756)1/25/2011 8:45:14 PM
From: TimF
   of 20773
 
Its not "putting the world back" to anything, at worst its a failure to improve the situation.

At best the treaty would allow for a marginal reduction in cost, and an even more marginal increase in safety. There will still be plenty of nuclear weapons, its not a ground shacking change. If it was, that would allow for a possible greater benefit, but would come with some serious risk as well.

At worst it makes the world more dangerous as arguably (depending on whose interpretation of the treaty you go by) it could harm anti-missile efforts, and possibly efforts to use dual capable weapons systems for conventional attacks. Also while the treaty covers the US and Russia, it doesn't cover other countries, so it brings us down to a level closer to them (but not IMO enough to be a very serious concern for now)

Even if your going to give no benefit of any doubt, and take the most extreme position about someone else's ideas and their reasons for them, "traitor" still doesn't make any sense. Positive or negative the treaty's effects will likely be so small that its not very sensible to consider either side to be in any way a traitor or near traitor just because of their position on this, even if the stated position is dishonest, and entirely for self serving reasons, while the holder of the position really believes the national interest would be the opposite position.

And of course you haven't provided any argument for your contention that the position of your opponents is even wrong, other than an argument from authority, and no argument at all for the idea that they actually believe the treaty would be of great benefit to the US, but they oppose it anyway. I suppose their might be a few (on both sides) of the issue who are acting like that, but it seems to me that generally both sides think their own position actually is in the general interest of the United States.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (20757)1/28/2011 8:19:51 PM
From: Skywatcher
   of 20773
 
It would have made sure that all the nuclear materials in the soviet union would have been under little or no int'l supervision compared to the treaty...it would have made the world and the US a much more unsafe place

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Skywatcher who wrote (20758)1/28/2011 10:47:58 PM
From: TimF
   of 20773
 
Its not primarily a "supervise the ex-Soviet union's nuclear materials treaty." We've had agreements about that before, and we could have agreements about that without directly have this specific arms control treaty, or any tighter limit on strategic weapons. Also the actual monitoring involves a lot more ongoing agreement and working together than just some signature on a paper followed by ratification.

.it would have made the world and the US a much more unsafe place

That's false in at least two ways. The treaty itself won't make things much safer, and even if it somehow would have the lack of it wouldn't make things more dangerous it would leave things the way they where before/without the treaty. Even if the status quo is "dangerous", it still wouldn't be "more dangerous", or to use your words "much more unsafe".

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (20759)1/31/2011 2:21:38 PM
From: Skywatcher
   of 20773
 
Here's more completely ANTI AMERICAN stuff coming from the Republican 'party'

GOP Introduces Bill to "Pay China First" -- Before Social Security Recipients

You might think the GOP hates the poor and the elderly and, really, all of those that rely on entitlement payments of one sort or another. But I'll bet you didn't know how much they hate them.



They hate them enough to introduce a bill that prioritizes paying off our debt to China over their monthly checks.



That's right. Congressman Tom McClintock of California has introduced H.R. 421 – "To require that the Government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached." This bill would prioritize payments to China and our other creditors over our own citizens should Congress not raise the debt ceiling.

According to Talking Points Memo, Pat Toomey will do the same in the Senate.



"I intend to introduce legislation that would require the Treasury to make interest payments on our debt its first priority in the event that the debt ceiling is not raised," Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) wrote in a Friday Wall Street Journal op-ed.



If passed, Toomey's plan would require the government to cut large checks to foreign countries, and major financial institutions, before paying off its obligations to Social Security beneficiaries and other citizens owed money by the Treasury -- that is, if the U.S. hits its debt ceiling.



UPDATE: Here's the text of Toomey's Senate bill (S.B. 163 – "The Full Faith and Credit Act", [aka, "The Pay China First Act"]):



In the event that the debt of the United States Government, as defined in section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, reaches the statutory limit, the authority of the Department of the Treasury provided in section 3123 of title 31, United States Code, to pay with legal tender the principal and interest on debt held by the public shall take priority over all other obligations incurred by the Government of the United States.

(H/T to hope4usa who emailed me the Senate bill [all two pages of it.])

Here are some reactions from around the country.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Skywatcher who wrote (20760)1/31/2011 2:41:30 PM
From: TimF
   of 20773
 
Nothing anti-American about making your debt payments, before conducting other spending, that just acting sensibly. (Esp. when the primary budget deficit is going to continue to be large, we can't inflate away or default on the debt and continue to borrow at the nice low interest rates the treasury gets now. Inflate away the debt and all that social spending you want becomes totally unaffordable much quicker as interest rates soar. Default on the debt and we can't borrow for those programs at all.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (20761)2/2/2011 2:43:20 PM
From: Skywatcher
   of 20773
 
the banned from Congress Gingrich gets his 'head' handed to him
alternet.org

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Skywatcher who wrote (20762)2/2/2011 11:03:49 PM
From: Hawkmoon
1 Recommendation   of 20773
 
Just because Dean "grandstanded" on the issue doesn't mean he handed Newt's head to him..

Here's the crux. We have a huge line of SKILLED individuals seeking LEGITIMATE IMMIGRATION.

So why the hell should those who violate the law be rewarded at the expense of those who are patiently waiting to immigrate here?

Ok.. if your parents dragged you here as a kid and you've spent the majority of your life here illegally, gone to school, learned English, become a productive individual, then I'm fine with granting citizenship at age 18.

And I'm fine with granting work visas to those ALREADY here holding productive jobs. I'm not heartless. I just want to know who is here, what they're doing, where they live..

All the things their own government would demand of me if I were living in their country.

Hawk

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Hawkmoon who wrote (20763)2/3/2011 8:14:57 AM
From: Dale Baker
1 Recommendation   of 20773
 
That's why a guest worker program is the only sane solution to the problem. But it makes too much sense for our demagogues in Congress to get behind while they can posture and perform about "getting tough" and the problem just gets worse every year.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)
Previous 10 Next 10